Rental Housing Discrimination on 

the Basis of Mental Disabilities: 

Results of Pilot Testing 

Study of Rental Housing 

Discrimination on the Basis  

of Mental Disabilities:  

Final Report

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development  |  Office of Policy Development and Research

RENTAL HOUSING 

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS 

OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: 

RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING 

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS  

OF MENTAL DISABILITIES:  

FINAL REPORT

Prepared by

Joy Hammel

Janet Smith

University of Illinois at Chicago

Susan Scovill

Consultant

Ron Campbell

M. Davis and Company, Inc.

Rui Duan

HDR, Inc.

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Submitted by

M. Davis and Company, Inc. 

August 2017

Acknowledgments

This project could not have been completed successfully 

Human Policy, Law, and Disability Studies; Marti Knisely, 

without the commitment, dedication, and hard work 

Community Support Initiative, the Technical Assistance 

of many. We particularly thank the research team and 

Collaborative; Katherine McDonald, Associate Professor, 

administrative support staff at M. Davis and Company, Inc. 

Syracuse University; Tia Nelis, Self-Advocacy Specialist at 

Thanks are also due to Madeline Hoffman for assisting with 

the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Institute 

coordination, quality control, and guidance throughout 

on Disability and Human Development, University of 

the testing process and to May Raad of HDR, Inc., for their 

Illinois at Chicago; Jan Peters, Executive Vice President 

analysis contributions. Finally, this study would not have 

and Chief Operating Officer, Eden Housing Inc.; Susan 

been possible without the work of our local testing organi-

Ann Silverstein, Senior Attorney, Foundation Litigation, 

zations, Access Living in Chicago (Jamie Wichman, Kelly 

AARP; Karen Tamley, Commissioner of the Mayor’s Office 

Chen) and The Equal Rights Center in Washington, D.C. 

for People with Disabilities, City of Chicago; Victoria 

(Kristen Barry and Valentine Khaminwa), and our outstand-

Tedder, Housing Counseling and Advocacy Program, San 

ing group of testers—many of whom are members of the 

Francisco Independent Living Resource Center; and Sam 

very disability community that is the focus of this study.

Tsemberis, Pathways to Housing. Many thanks are due to 

Kim Savage for her assistance in managing the expert panel.

A panel of expert advisers made invaluable contributions 

to the authors’ understanding of the housing experiences 

Anne Fletcher from the U.S. Department of Housing and 

and challenges faced by people with mental disability, 

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

reasonable accommodations, and protocol design and 

Research, provided excellent guidance and oversight 

data analysis. The panel members (and their organiza-

throughout this research effort.

tional affiliations at the time of the study) were Michael 

Finally, special thanks and remembrance to Bonnie Milstein, 

Allen, Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC; Anne Cameron 

a lifelong advocate for disability rights and social justice, 

Caldwell, Research and Innovations Officer and Director 

who served on the initial project team and coordinated the 

of the Autism NOW Resource Center, The ARC; Arlene 

expert panel.

Kanter, Co-Director of the Syracuse University Center on 

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

iii

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................ vi

Data Analysis ................................................................ 27

Introduction .................................................................... vi

Measuring Discrimination ............................................. 27

Summary of Findings .....................................................vii

Findings of Incidence of Discrimination ............................... 29

Recommendations .........................................................viii

Data Reliability and Limitations .................................... 29

Study Overview ...................................................................... 1

E-mail Testing Findings ................................................. 29

Purpose and Goals of the Study ...................................... 1

Reasonable Accommodation Requests via E-mail ............ 31

Background and Previous Research on Housing 

Telephone Testing Findings ........................................... 32

Discrimination Against People With MD .................. 1

Reasonable Accommodation Requests via Telephone ...... 34

Overview of Testing Focused on Individuals With MD .... 2

In-Person Testing Findings ............................................ 36

Paired Testing Protocols and Field Management ..................... 4

Findings From the Evaluation of Different Testing Modes ..... 38

Overview of Testing for Housing Discrimination ............. 4

People With Disabilities As Testers: Is It Feasible? ......... 38

Strengths and Limitations of Paired Testing in Different 

Tester Profile: How Do You Isolate and Reveal Disability? .. 38

Testing Methods....................................................... 4

E-mail Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses ..................... 40

Overview of the Paired Testing Design and Process ......... 5

Telephone Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses ............... 41

Pretesting ........................................................................ 5

In-Person Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses As  

E-mail Testing Protocols .................................................. 6

Evaluated by Testers With MD and Companion 

Telephone Testing Protocols ............................................ 9

Testers ................................................................... 42

In-Person Testing Protocols ........................................... 12

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations .................... 47

Overall Data Collection Oversight, Management, and 

Project Leadership and Design ...................................... 49

Quality Control...................................................... 16

Recruitment and Selection of Testers ............................. 49

Sampling Methods ................................................................ 17

Training and Data Collection ......................................... 49

Sampling Frame ............................................................ 17

Appendix A: Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt 

Allocation of Tests Across Market Size ........................... 17

and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental 

Sample of Metropolitan Areas........................................ 18

Disabilities by Different Testing Modes ................................. 50

Selection of Advertised Units ........................................ 20

Qualitative Analysis Methodology ................................. 50

Risk of Detection ........................................................... 21

Data Analysis ................................................................ 51

Sampling of Units ......................................................... 21

Results .......................................................................... 53

Analysis of Testing Findings ................................................. 23

Discussion and Conclusions .......................................... 61

Summary of Tests Conducted ........................................ 23

Appendix B: References ........................................................ 63

Measuring Differential Treatment .................................. 24

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

iv

List of Tables

Table 23.  Differential Treatment in Response Received 

for Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing .... 31

Table 1. 

Testing Timeline .................................................. 5

Table 24.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters 

Table 2. 

Subject Lines Assigned Randomly for All 

With MI Found in E-mail Testing ...................... 31

E-mail Tests ......................................................... 6

Table 25.  Summary of Reasonable Accommodation 

Table 3. 

E-mail Tester Scripts ............................................ 7

Requests by Testers With MD Found in E-mail 

Testing ............................................................... 32

Table 4. 

Reasonable Accommodation Request by Type 

of Disability ......................................................... 8

Table 26.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters 

With MD Found in Telephone Testing ............... 32

Table 5. 

Telephone Tester Scripts .................................... 10

Table 27.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters 

Table 6. 

Examples of How MD May Affect Functional 

With MI Found in Telephone Testing ................ 33

Aspects of Life and Maintenance of Housing ..... 14

Table 28.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters 

Table 7. 

Sampling Frame for People With MD, by Test 

With I/DD Found in Telephone Testing ............. 33

Type .................................................................. 17

Table 29.  Summary of Reasonable Accommodation 

Table 8. 

Rental Market Sampling Frame .......................... 17

 Requests by Testers With MD Found in 

Table 9. 

Allocation of Tests Across Market Size ............... 17

Telephone Testing .............................................. 34

Table 10.  Distribution of Population With Disabilities 

Table 30.  Summary of Reasonable Accommodation 

and Proportion With Cognitive Disabilities, 

Request Responses by Specific Markets ............. 35

2009–2011 ........................................................ 18

Table 31.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters 

Table 11.  Pool of Possible Markets (MSAs) Based on 

With MD Found in In-Person Testing ................ 36

Statistical Criteria for Inclusion ......................... 19

Table 32.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters 

Table 12.  Selected Markets by Size and  Olmstead Status .... 20

With MI Found in In-Person Testing ................. 36

Table 13.  Sample Allocation Plan Across Communities 

Table 33.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters 

and Test Types by Market Size ........................... 20

With I/DD Found in In-Person Testing .............. 37

Table 14.  Criteria for Inclusion in/Exclusion From Unit 

Table 34.  Pros and Cons of E-mail Testing ........................ 41

Sample .............................................................. 21

Table 35.  Pros and Cons of Telephone Testing .................. 42

Table 15.  Total Tests Conducted by Test Mode .................. 23

Table 36.  Pros and Cons of In-Person Testing ................... 46

Table 16.  E-mail Sample Allocation by Market Size .......... 23

Table A-1.  Samples of Telephone and In-Person Testing ..... 51

Table 17.  Telephone Testing Allocation by Market Size ..... 24

Table A-2.  Subtle Discrimination Indicator Keyword 

Table 18.  In-Person Sample Allocation by Location .......... 24

Groups .............................................................. 52

Table 19.  Differential Treatment Indicator Matrix .............. 25

Table A-3.  Response Difference in E-mail Content .............. 53

Table 20.  Possible Outcomes Matrix ................................. 27

Table A-4.  Subtle Discrimination Responses in Multiple 

Categories ......................................................... 53

Table 21.  Differential Treatment in Response Received 

for Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in 

Table A-5.  Subtle Discrimination in E-mail Testing ............. 55

E-mail Testing ................................................... 29

Table A-6.  Housing Provider Responses to RA Requests in 

Table 22.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters 

E-mail Testing ................................................... 55

With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing ... 30

Table A-7.  Open Door/Closed Door in E-mail Testing ........ 55

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

v

Table A-8.  Subtle Discrimination in Telephone Testing ....... 57

List of Figures

Table A-9.  Overt Discrimination in Telephone Testing ........ 58

Table A-10. Housing Provider Responses to RA Requests 

Figure 1.  Flow of Sample Selection and Testing Process ... 22

in Telephone Testing .......................................... 58

Figure 2.  Response Rate of E-mail Paired Tests ................. 23

Table A-11. Open Door/Closed Door in Telephone Testing... 58

Figure 3.  Response Rates of E-mail Paired Tests for 

Table A-12. Subtle Discrimination in In-Person Testing ........ 60

Pro tected Testers Identifying as a Person With 

MI .................................................................... 30

Table A-13. Overt Discrimination in In-Person Testing ......... 60

Figure A-1.  E-mail Testing Responses ................................... 50

Table A-14. Open Door/Closed Door in In-Person Testing ... 61

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

vi

Executive Summary

Introduction

From focus group input, the authors learned that individuals 

with MI and I/DD experience potential discrimination at 

More than 15 million people in the United States have some 

different points of time in the rental process: when initially 

type of mental disability (MD). Many of these individuals seek 

attempting to gain information about available units, during the 

community-based housing in the rental market. As a result of the 

application process, and even after moving in and during their 

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in  Olmstead v.  L.C. , 527 U.S. 581 

tenure in their home.

(1999), an increasing number of individuals with disabilities 

are moving from nursing homes and other institutional and 

After the literature review and focus group phases were con-

segregated settings into community-based settings. As a result, 

ducted, protocols for conducting discrimination testing were 

equality of access to the rental housing market has become 

designed. A matched-pair testing design was created to examine 

even more of a critical policy issue.

differences in treatment by housing providers between indi-

viduals with MI and I/DD (protected testers) and individuals 

This study represents the first comprehensive examination of 

without such disabilities (control testers). Paired testers were 

discrimination in the rental housing market against people 

matched on key characteristics other than disability, such as 

with MD, specifically focusing on people with mental illness 

income, race, gender, and age. The testing sought to examine 

(MI) and those with intellectual or developmental disability (I/

differences in testers’ treatment across three modes of contact 

DD). The goal of the study is to increase the understanding of 

with housing providers: e-mail, telephone, and in person. These 

the forms and prevalence of housing discrimination against this 

modes generally represent the primary ways people, including 

community as its members seek market-rate rental housing.

individuals with MI and I/DD, might seek rental housing. In 

The overall study design included a stepwise approach to 

two of the modes, e-mail and telephone testing, a request for 

testing the feasibility of involving individuals with MI and I/DD 

a reasonable accommodation was also made by the protected 

in discrimination testing and to obtaining data regarding their 

tester to allow for the examination of housing providers’ 

treatment by rental housing providers. The study was initiated 

responses.

with a comprehensive review of relevant literature and the 

An initial set of exploratory tests was administered to examine 

convening of multiple focus groups that included individuals 

and refine testing protocols before broad-scale testing. After the 

with MI and I/DD, disability and fair housing organizations, 

exploratory testing, broad-scale pilot testing was conducted in 

and policymakers. As very little discrimination research to date 

multiple urban rental markets across the United States. Testing 

has actually included these target populations as participants in 

in each mode was divided equally between the two subcatego-

the process, the focus groups were particularly informative in 

ries of MD (MI and I/DD), and more than 1,000 matched-pair 

identifying specific issues faced by individuals with MI and I/

tests were administered—359 by e-mail in nine rental markets, 

DD throughout the process of seeking rental housing. Barriers 

668 by telephone in nine rental markets, and 101 in person in 

identified by the focus group process included—

two large rental markets.

•  Negative and stigmatizing reactions and attitudes by 

This study represents the first time that individuals with MI 

housing providers and their agents.

and I/DD have been enlisted to serve as in-person testers in 

•  Improper requests to disclose personal and disability-relat-

a comprehensive, multicity housing discrimination study. 

ed information. 

As a result, this study also contributes significantly to our 

knowledge about research methodologies that are accessible, 

•  A lack of understanding about what types of reasonable 

inclusive, and participatory to individuals with MI and I/DD. 

accommodations may be needed by individuals with MD.

Based on feedback from individuals with MI and I/DD, a testing 

methodology was developed for this study in which individuals 

•

The denial of proper requests for reasonable accommodations.  

without MI and I/DD were trained and accompanied protected 

•  Steering toward specific housing, buildings, or units based 

testers as companions during in-person tests. These companion 

on an individual’s disability.

testers served three roles: first, to act as a friend and natural 

support to the protected tester during the testing; second, to 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

vii

further disclose the MD of the protected tester to the housing 

In both e-mail and telephone testing, a significant percentage 

provider; and third, to assist in preparing detailed field notes 

of individuals with MI and I/DD also experienced adverse treat-

to document their testing experiences.

ment with respect to a request for a reasonable accommodation. 

The reasonable accommodations requested were identified as 

Summary of Findings

specific to the protected tester’s functional needs, such as the 

use of an assistance animal to manage emotional and cognitive 

The testing conducted in this study documented significant 

issues or the need for a verbal reminder from the landlord to 

levels of adverse differential treatment toward individuals with 

pay the rent on time.

MI and I/DD when compared with individuals who did not 

•

The willingness of a housing provider to grant a request for an 

have MD. Pilot testing revealed that individuals with MI and I/

accommodation varied by mode of testing, with the rate of 

DD were—

granting a request for a reasonable accommodation being 

•

Less likely to receive a response to their inquiry (17.55 percent significantly higher when the request was made by telephone 

of people without disabilities received a response com-

(59.14 percent willing to accommodate; 40.86 percent not 

pared with 9.19 percent of people with MI and I/DD in 

willing to accommodate) than by e-mail (15.38 percent 

e-mail testing).

willing to accommodate; 84.62 percent not willing to 

accommodate).1

•

Less likely to be told an advertised unit was available (5.94 

percent of people without disabilities were told that the 

•

Regardless of testing mode, a significant percentage of people 

advertised unit was available compared with 0.99 percent 

with MI and I/DD were given a negative response to their 

of people with MI and I/DD in in-person testing).

reasonable accommodation request, ranging from outright 

denials to more subtle barriers, such as an indication that 

•

Less likely to be invited to contact the housing provider (7.69 

the individual with MD would be responsible for actively 

percent of people without disabilities were invited to 

seeking out and appealing the denial of his or her request 

contact the housing provider to see the unit compared 

with higher-level managers whose name and contact 

with 0.00 percent of people with MI and I/DD in e-mail 

information were then not provided.2

testing).

The research also found that many housing providers simply 

•

Less likely to be invited to inspect the available unit (21.26 

did not respond to housing inquiries but that the probability 

percent of people without disabilities were invited to 

of a response increased based on the interpersonal nature of 

inspect the unit compared with 16.47 percent of people 

the interaction. For example, in-person inquiries received the 

with MI and I/DD in telephone testing).

highest rates of response, followed by telephone inquiries, with 

•

More likely to be encouraged to look at a different unit than the e-mail inquiries the most likely to be ignored.

one advertised in telephone testing, a potential indicator 

Each of the three testing modes used (e-mail, telephone, and 

of steering people with MI and I/DD toward specific 

in person) yielded a different form of testing data that, when 

buildings or areas within rental complexes, resulting in 

viewed together, not only produced evidence of discrimination 

segregated living patterns.

but also showed promise for bringing testing to a national scale 

•

Treated adversely at disparate rates depending on disability 

and provided insights on opportunities for future testing.

type, with higher rates of adverse treatment found for 

Finally, this study yielded significant findings on how to con-

individuals with MI than for individuals with  I/DD. This 

duct testing with testers with MD. In-person testing specifically 

finding may indicate that individuals with MI face more 

involving a person with MD demonstrated that people with MI 

negative stereotypes and stigma from rental housing 

and I/DD can serve as effective testers.3 The evidence from the 

providers.

1 In-person testing protocols did not include a request by the protected tester for a reasonable accommodation. 

2 In addition, testing results varied by metropolitan statistical area (MSA), with the rate of granting a reasonable accommodation request being lowest in the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI MSA (38.6 percent), and highest in the Albuquerque, NM MSA (75.5 percent).

3 Contributing to these outcomes were training and support provided to the testers, the use of a companion tester, and the overall coordination of the testing by community-based disability rights organizations.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

viii

in-person testing suggests strongly that both populations could 

the community of people with MI and  I/DD about their rights also do telephone testing if the same approach to training and 

under federal, state, and local antidiscrimination laws, how 

debriefing is used.

to recognize potential discrimination, and what actions to 

take when faced with discrimination.

Recommendations

•

Additional research is necessary to better understand the 

scope and severity of the discriminatory barriers encountered 

These findings led the authors to make the following recom-

by individuals with MI and I/DD as they seek, obtain, and 

mendations.

retain accessible rental housing. Findings from this pilot 

•

A broad-based education initiative should be created to 

study effort suggest that a national testing effort would be 

educate housing providers, including owners and their 

feasible.

agents, about fair housing rights and obligations, includ-

•

Individuals with MI and I/DD can and should be an integral 

ing appropriate policies and practices when dealing with 

part of future housing research and testing, housing dis-

individuals with MI, I/DD, and other MD.

crimination education initiatives, and efforts to strengthen 

•  Public and private housing, disability, and civil rights 

housing policy to promote equal housing opportunity.

organizations should  redouble efforts to engage and educate 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

1

Study Overview

Purpose and Goals of the Study

•  Short Paper 1:  Systematic Literature Review of Research 

on Discrimination in Rental Housing on the Basis of Mental 

The existing research related to housing discrimination and its 

Disabilities.

effect on individuals with mental disability (MD)4 is particular-

ly limited; therefore, HUD launched this study with the goal of 

•  Short Paper 2:  Getting Into and Maintaining Housing in the 

increasing the understanding of the experiences of individuals 

Private Rental Market: Experiences of People With Mental 

with MD as they seek rental housing.

Disabilities.

The following research objectives identified by HUD guided 

•  Short Paper 3:  The Potential for Discrimination in Rental 

this study.

Housing for People With Mental Disabilities Moving Out of 

Institutions to Community Living Under  Olmstead.

•  Develop and implement different testing methods and 

approaches, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, to 

•  Short Paper 4:  Accessible &   Participatory Methods for establish a series of protocols for conducting paired testing 

Involving People With Mental Disabilities in Housing Discrimi-

to determine and measure the degree to which people 

nation Testing.

with MD experience discrimination in the search for rental 

•  Short Paper 5:  Rental Housing Access & Discrimination 

housing.

Experienced by People With Multiple Disabilities.

•  Conduct pilot testing using different testing procedures to 

develop protocols for generating reliable estimates of any 

Background and Previous Research 

difference in the treatment of people with MD during the 

on Housing Discrimination Against 

process of searching for rental housing.

People With MD

•  Produce a qualitative and quantitative analysis of Title VIII 

Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) 

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA)7 prohibits discrimination 

data.5

in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in other 

housing-related transactions, on the basis of seven protected 

•  Produce five short papers that expand the understanding 

classes: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, in the field of housing discrimination on the basis of MD.6

and disability. Housing providers are prohibited from consid-

The purpose of this study was not to generate national 

ering these protected characteristics as the basis for rejecting 

estimates of housing discrimination on the basis of MD, but 

or refusing to negotiate with individuals seeking housing or 

rather to pilot methods for conducting paired testing with this 

housing-related services and from misrepresenting or limiting 

protected class with the goal of demonstrating a potentially 

housing opportunities based on any protected characteristic.

feasible approach to future nationwide testing.

In addition to having the basic prohibitions of the FHA against 

Additional short papers have been developed to inform 

housing discrimination for all protected classes, people with 

researchers, practitioners, and consumers about the shape 

disabilities have three additional protections under the FHA: 

and scope of housing discrimination against people with MD. 

(1) multifamily housing with four or more units, built for 

These papers focus on the following related topics.

first  occupancy after March 13, 1991, must meet specific, if 

4  Mental disability is defined as “(1) having a mental or psychological disorder or condition that limits a major life activity, including working; (2) any other mental or psychological disorder or condition that requires special education or related services; (3) having a record or history of a mental or psychological disorder or condition which is known to the employer or other entity covered by this part; or (4) being regarded or treated by the employer as having, or having had, any mental condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult” ( Foster v.  City of Oakland, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70094).

5 TEAPOTS provides data records regarding filed discrimination complaints. The analysis of TEAPOTS data on housing complaints based on MD is documented in a separate report.

6 These papers have been published by HUD separately.

7 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended in 1988, 24 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

2

relatively modest, accessibility requirements that allow for a 

6.3 percent of the U.S. population in 2010, approximately 15.2 

person with disabilities to access and use both the housing 

million people age 15 or older, had difficulty with cognitive, 

units and associated public use and common use areas; (2) 

mental, or emotional functioning (Brault, 2012). This number 

housing providers must make reasonable accommodations 

includes people with both PD and I/DD. Using a broader defini-

to their rules, policies, practices, and services necessary for 

tion and different methodology, however, the Substance Abuse 

people with disabilities to equally enjoy the property; and 

and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) estimates 

(3) housing providers must allow residents with disabilities, 

a much larger number of people who have experienced some 

at the residents’ expense, to make reasonable modifications 

form of PD in a year: 44.5 million adults age 18 or older.10 This 

to physical structures necessary in order for them to use and 

total comprises nearly 20 percent of the adult U.S. population. 

enjoy the property.

Of this total, about 10.4 million adults (4.6 percent) of U.S. 

population have severe MI (APA, 2000). Braddock et al. (2011) 

In addition, in 1999, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 

used a figure of 4.8 million for the population with I/DD.

Olmstead v.  L.C. , 527 U.S. 581, that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination in violation 

Little is known about the forms of discrimination people with 

of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.8 Although the 

MD experience when searching for housing. According to 

beneficiaries of this ruling are all people with disabilities, the 

NCD (2001), people with any disability are likely to encounter 

decision has had a particularly significant effect on individuals 

discrimination in three ways: (1) the housing is inaccessible, (2) 

with MD living in restrictive and segregated settings, including 

the landlord assumes that renters with disabilities are unable to 

nursing homes and institutions. As states seek to comply with 

live independently, and/or (3) the housing staff are unwilling to 

the  Olmstead ruling, people with MD are moving out of insti-

modify rules and policies that exclude people with disabilities. 

tutional settings in larger numbers and increasingly seeking 

For people with MD, access to housing also may be affected by 

housing in the private rental market.

histories of homelessness or incarceration, both of which can be 

potential sources of additional discrimination.

Individuals with MD often face multiple challenges when they 

seek housing in the rental housing market. Challenges may 

include both economic barriers and stigma or suspicion on 

Overview of Testing Focused on 

the part of housing providers that limits their access to diverse 

Individuals With MD

housing choices. Complaints based on disability make up the 

largest number of housing discrimination complaints filed with 

Although fair housing testing related to the barriers faced by the 

federal, state, and local fair housing agencies and with private 

disability community has been conducted in some metropolitan 

fair housing groups (HUD, 2014a). In 2014, disability com-

areas, research on housing discrimination against people 

plaints made up 51.84 percent, or 14,271 of the total number 

with MD is particularly limited. Before this study, the most 

of 27,528 fair housing complaints filed with HUD, its partner 

significant examination of the level and nature of this type of 

state and local agencies, and private fair housing enforcement 

disability discrimination was published in a 2005 HUD Disabil-

organizations (NFHA, 2015).9 A significant portion of these 

ity Discrimination Study report (DDS 2005; HUD, 2005).

complaints involves people with MD. For example, HUD (n.d., 

DDS 2005 explored the development of methodologies in 

Table 1) noted that, in fiscal year 2010, fully 40 percent of the 

testing for housing discrimination on the basis of MD using a 

disability complaints involved MD, which includes people with 

paired testing methodology previously used in testing for hous-

psychiatric disability or mental illness (PD/MI) and intellectual 

ing discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity. DDS 2005 

or developmental disability (I/DD).

employed a handful of in - person tests by individuals with MD 

In the United States, the term “mental disability” includes 

and telephone tests by testers without disabilities purportedly 

a wide range of conditions. According to the U.S. Census 

calling on behalf of individuals with MD.

Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, about 

8 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.

9 This percentage is an increase from 49.51 percent of all complaints submitted in 2013.

10 SAMHSA defines  mental illness as the presence of mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder based on the diagnostic criteria in APA (2000).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

3

Key findings of DDS 2005 exploratory testing included—

•  Testers with MD may be more effective if they conduct 

tests relatively infrequently, and it would be preferable to 

•  It is feasible to conduct in-person testing, and people with 

extend the testing over a relatively long period of time, 

MD can effectively serve as testers.

unless a large pool of testers with MD could be recruited.

•  It is challenging to recruit people with MD who can 

The pilot testing documented in this report sought to build on 

handle the role of a tester, and some individuals may need 

the key findings observed in DDS 2005.

extra support and assistance.

•  Tests in which the person with MD was accompanied by 

a “friend” without MD proved to be credible and effective 

but significantly raised the cost of testing.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

4

Paired Testing Protocols and Field Management

Overview of Testing for Housing 

to determine whether reasonable modifications or accommoda-

Discrimination

tions are permitted to enable a person with a disability to fully 

enjoy living in the housing.

Testing is an investigative technique that serves as a powerful 

tool for directly observing differences in treatment in the 

Strengths and Limitations of Paired 

practices of housing providers and their agents. Testers pose 

as individuals seeking housing, contacting housing providers 

Testing in Different Testing Methods

in a variety of ways to inquire about housing opportunities. 

Testing can be conducted in a variety of configurations, 

The origins of paired testing as a method of studying housing 

depending on the issues being examined, but the most common 

discrimination and identifying differential treatment lie in fair 

and effective approach to observing differences in treatment 

housing enforcement, in which testing is often used to identify 

based on a particular characteristic is matched-pair testing. 

individual housing providers who are violating housing 

In this type of testing, two testers are assigned profiles that 

discrimination laws.11 When paired testing is applied to large, 

make them similarly situated and qualified for the housing 

representative samples and implemented with rigorous con-

being tested, differing only in their membership in a protected 

trols using a quasi-experimental research design, it can provide 

class. The testers contact a housing provider and inquire 

reliable estimates of the differences in treatment among 

about available housing. Matched-pair testing allows for the 

different populations and of the prevalence of discriminatory 

observation of housing providers’ actions and statements and 

behavior toward different protected classes. Paired testing also 

measures whether and how people are treated differently 

can be used to identify discrimination by a specific provider 

during the housing search process. The tester exhibiting the 

that violates the FHA.

characteristic being tested (for example, a disability) is referred 

HUD has used testing as an investigative and research tool 

to as the  protected tester and the tester without the characteristic for more than 40 years to identify and document discrimi-in the pair is the  control tester. The key to testing is to ensure natory housing practices.12 HUD has funded a wide variety 

pairs are well matched on all variables except the one variable 

of testing-based initiatives, including four national studies 

or characteristic to be tested—this procedure ensures that 

using the methodology of matched-pair testing to measure the 

test results are unambiguous. The matched characteristics of 

levels of housing discrimination based on race and ethnicity, 

the tester pairs in this study included race, gender, age range, 

and HUD has also funded national studies on discrimination 

education, employment, household size, and income. The 

against same-sex couples, families with children, people who 

single variable that differed between matched testers was the 

are deaf, and people who use wheelchairs.13 For people with 

existence or absence of a particular MD.14 To minimize the risk 

disabilities, testing can be used to identify instances of direct 

of detection by housing providers during testing, some of the 

discrimination, to obtain evidence of unequal treatment, and 

characteristics assigned to a test pair were slightly enhanced to 

favor the protected tester.

11 HUD has noted that: “Fair housing advocates have turned to testing as the most effective tool to investigate violations of fair housing law” (HUD, 2014b).

12 Testing cannot capture all forms of housing discrimination. It is most effective at the early stages of the search for housing, including contacting providers to inquire about housing opportunities and visiting properties to view units and obtain information about the rental (or sales, lending, and insurance) process and associated costs. Testers generally have fictitious profiles, and testing rarely proceeds through the actual application stage. Testing also does not effectively capture issues found later in the housing process, such as decisions made based on submitted applications or how residents in a protected class are treated after they move in, such as maintenance or lease termination.

13 See HUD (2013a) and HUD (2015).

14 Because of the need to isolate the single variable of MD (either MI or I/DD) and the need to ensure that the profiles made the testers financially qualified for the housing, the testing protocols could not reflect the real life experience of many people with MD searching for rental housing, whose lives and characteristics are much more complex than the rigors of research testing would allow.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

5

Overview of the Paired Testing Design  DDS 2005 study, which conducted a small number of explor-and Process

atory telephone and in-person tests based on MD employing 

some individuals with MD as protected testers.

This study included testing components in nine selected rental 

The e-mail and telephone testing in this study was conducted 

markets using matched-pair testing via e-mail, telephone, and 

from a central location in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The 

in-person visits.15 The overall goals were to (1) enhance the 

in-person testing was performed by local testing organizations 

understanding of the barriers faced by individuals with MD 

in two markets: Access Living in the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, 

in their search for rental housing, (2) determine the type and 

IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA; hereafter, Chi-

nature of discrimination that might be encountered, (3) eval-

cago) and The Equal Rights Center in the Washington-Arling-

uate the utility of different approaches to paired testing when 

ton-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA (hereafter, Washington, 

conducting research on housing discrimination on the basis 

D.C.). These testing organizations recruited, trained, and 

of MD, and (4) assess the feasibility of employing individuals 

managed the in-person testing in the field with support and 

with MD as testers. The testing in this study was not designed 

supervision from the study team.

to produce a national estimate of rental discrimination, but 

rather was designed to develop and evaluate the utility of 

different testing approaches and techniques for measuring 

Pretesting

housing discrimination among this particular protected class.

Before beginning the pilot testing, pretests were conducted for 

As shown in Table 1, the testing for this study took place over 

each testing mode (e-mail, telephone, and in-person testing). 

a 1 1/2-year period in 2013 and 2014. The timeframes for 

The purpose of the pretesting was to ensure that (1) data 

each mode of testing were staggered, with each new testing 

collection protocols and strategies were designed correctly; 

mode beginning with pretesting to confirm the effectiveness 

(2) testers were trained to execute the tests appropriately; (3) 

of that mode and to assess the need for any methodological 

administrative procedures were effective; (4) the data entry, 

adjustments. The testing protocols in this study built on the 

coding, and interpretation process accurately captured the 

protocols established in previous studies; the e-mail testing 

experiences of testers; and (5) feedback was produced quickly, 

protocols mirrored those used in a national e-mail testing 

without detection, so as to permit adjustments in the testing 

study of same-sex couples, and the telephone testing and 

protocols.

in-person testing protocols mirrored those established in the 

Table 1. Testing Timeline 

2013

2014

3rd Q

4th Q

1st Q

2nd Q

3rd Q

4th Q

Testing

E-mail

Pretest

Pilot testing

Washington, D.C.a/Chicagob

Remaining markets/RA request

Telephone

Pretest

Pilot testing Washington, D.C.a/Chicagob

Pilot testing remaining markets

In person

Pretest

Pilot testing

RA = reasonable accommodation.

a Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area.

b Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area.

15 The rental markets tested were in the following metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs): the Albuquerque, NM; Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI; Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN; Fresno, CA; Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA; Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN; New Haven-Milford, CT; Syracuse, NY; and Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSAs.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

6

Focus group input and a review of relevant literature provided 

Table 2. Subject Lines Assigned Randomly for All 

information about how people with MD engage in the housing 

E-mail Tests 

search process and identified unique factors affecting their 

1.  One bedroom apartment

housing search. Information from national and local disability 

2.  Apartment for rent

groups in Washington, D.C., and Chicago helped to identify 

3.  Unit for rent

the different sources used to locate housing units available for 

4.  Craigslist - 1br apartment

rent. These organizations also assisted in providing testers with 

5.  Craigslist Rental

consistent, realistic, and believable identities and backgrounds. 

6.  Unit availability

In ‐ person testers with MD portrayed their own disability and 7.  Apartment posted on craigslist

additional characteristics consistent with the tester profile 

8.  Craigslist apartment posting

provided by the study team.

9.  Inquiry about your apartment

Testing protocols were designed so as to create identities that 

10.  Saw your Craigslist Apartment ad

clearly disclosed the protected tester’s MD by incorporating 

11.  In response to your Craigslist listing

supporting information such as previous hospitalization or 

institutionalization and affiliation with relevant community 

A variety of e-mail “scripts” were developed to serve as the 

support agencies to ensure that the presence of MD was 

body of the message (see Table 3). In the body of the text, the 

unambiguously communicated to the housing provider. This 

protected tester discloses disability early in the text in one of 

background information was also used to provide testers with 

the following direct manners.

ready answers to the typical types of questions asked by rental 

agents, such as, “Why are you looking at this property?” and 

MI—“I have a mental health issue.” 

“Where do you work?”

I/DD—“I have a developmental disability.”

Control—none.

E-mail Testing Protocols

The e-mail text also contained a secondary reveal by the 

The e-mail testing did not use individuals serving as testers 

protected tester, with a parallel addition by control testers, 

in the traditional sense. Replicating the protocols of HUD 

referring to their previous residence.

(2013a), the de facto “tester” was the text of each paired e-mail 

MI—psychiatric hospital (“I have been living in a psychiatric and not the individual sending the e-mails. Test administrators 

center for the past year”). 

sent out all e-mails inquiring about advertised rental units and 

I/DD—group home (“I have been living in a group home for 

then reviewed and coded the responses. The text of the paired 

the past year”).

e-mails contained similar language asking about the housing 

unit for rent. The only difference between the two e-mails was 

Control—dorm, parents, divorce (“I have been living with my 

that one e-mail stated the person making the inquiry had MD 

parents, or just finished school and was living in a dorm, or just 

(either MI or I/DD). A total of 359 paired e-mail tests were ad-

got divorced”).

ministered, including 78 paired e-mail tests that incorporated 

The “dual disclosure” text samples in table 3 include reveal of 

a request for a reasonable accommodation in the e-mail of the 

the disability plus the alternate living scenarios, which provided 

protected tester.

a sufficient number of options and ensured that the text sam-

ples were comparable.

E-mail Testing Script

Including both a statement about having a disability and a 

A benefit of using e-mail for testing is that the message is 

type of previous living arrangement was designed to provide 

completely controlled and consistent for the protected tester 

clear and unambiguous evidence to a housing provider that 

and the control tester in the pair. Moreover, an e-mail response 

the prospective tenant had MD. Disclosing the current housing 

from a housing provider gives verbatim statements to code and 

situation of the protected tester is important because it not 

analyze in relation to the initial e-mail inquiry. For each e-mail 

only signals that the person has a disability (a requirement for 

test, the subject line (see Table 2) and the message were short 

that living situation), but it also signals that the applicant does 

and relatively neutral in tone, with standard information being 

not have experience living in the private market, which can 

requested.

make the individual appear to be more of a risk to the housing 

provider. This same justification applies to the disclosure of the 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

7

Table 3. E-mail Tester Scripts 

Protected Tester

Control Tester

Hello. I am interested in your 1 br. Apt. on <specify address>. Is it Hi, my name is <name>, and I am very interested in your 1br apt available? Is there a time I could come by and see it? I have a <disability located at <specify address>. I have been living in <alternate housing identifier> and have been living in <alternate housing identifier> and am identifier>. Could you let me know if it is still available and when a ready to get my own apartment. Thank you. <name>

convenient time to view it would be? Thank you. <name>

Hello. Your apartment (<specify location>) seems to be what I had in Hello. I saw your 1 br apt ad on CL at <specify address>. My name mind. Is it still available? I’d like to come by and view the apartment; is <name> and I am looking for a place that matches this description. 

could you contact me with an available time to do so? I have a <disability  I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m ready to get identifier> and I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier> but I want my own apartment. Is it available and, if so, can I see the unit? Thanks, to get my own apartment now. Thanks, <name>

<name>

Hello, I am writing in response to your listing for the 1 bedroom 

I saw your ad for a 1Br apartment on Craigslist located at <specify apartment located at <specify address>. Is it available? May I come and location>. Is this apartment still available? I would like to set a time to see it? I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier> because I have a see it. Can you tell me what hours you would be available so we can 

<disability identifier> and I’m ready to get my own apartment. Thank you  schedule a visit? I’m looking forward to getting my own apt. I have for your time, <name>.

been living in <alternate housing identifier>. I can be reached at this return email. Thanks, <name>

I saw your ad for a 1Br apartment on Craigslist located at <specify loca-Hello, I am writing in response to your listing for the 1 bedroom 

tion>. Is this apartment still available? I would like to set a time to see it. 

apartment located at <specify address>. Is it available? May I come Can you tell me what hours you would be available so we can schedule and see it? Let me know when would be a good time to come by. I’ve 

a visit? I’m looking forward to getting my own apt. I have been living in been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m ready to get my 

<alternate housing identifier> due to my <disability identifier>. I can be own apartment. Thank you for your time, <name>.

reached at this return email. Thanks, <name>

Hello. I saw your 1 br apt ad on CL at <specify address>. My name is Hello. Your apartment (<specify location>) seems to be what I had in 

<name> and I have a <disability identifier>. I am looking for a place that mind. Is it still available? I’d like to come by and view the apartment; matches this description. I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier>  could you contact me with an available time to do so? I have been because I have a <disability identifier> and I’m ready to get my own living in <alternate housing identifier> but I want to get my own apart-apartment. Is it available and, if so, can I see the unit? Thanks, <name> ment now. Thanks, <name>

Hello, I would like set up a time to see the place you advertised on Hi, I am writing in response to your listing for the 1 bedroom apartment 

<specify the address>. I was wondering, is this apartment still available? 

located at <specify address>. Is it available? May I come and see it? 

Also, is there any particular time that works best for a showing? I have I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m ready to get a <disability identifier> and have been living in <alternate housing iden-my own apartment. Thank you for your time, <name>.

tifier>. Please contact me for your most convenient time to view it. Best regards, <name>

current housing situation of the control tester, which is neces-

common request by people with MD, particularly for people 

sary for parity. The inclusion of phrases such as “I’m ready to 

with some forms of MD, and is also becoming a common 

get my own apartment” and “I’m excited about my own place” 

source of fair housing complaints filed.16

provides counterbalancing information that mirrors the profile 

The use of a request for a reminder of rent being due was an 

of the protected tester and raises a similar first apartment 

accommodation recommended by the study’s expert panel. It 

concern for a housing provider.

reflects a common housing-related concern for people with MD, 

In 78 of the paired e-mail tests, the protected tester included a 

especially because it may help a tenant keep his or her apart-

request for a reasonable accommodation. Table 4 summarizes 

ment. Before this study, little was known about how housing 

the different reasonable accommodation requests used in those 

providers would actually respond to this type of request, which 

additional tests. A request to have an assistance animal live 

requires the housing provider to be actively engaged with the 

at the test property was included because it is an increasingly 

tenant on a regular basis.

16 HUD uses the term “assistance animals,” which includes emotional support animals. According to HUD’s notice on Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded Programs, an assistance animal “is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability” (HUD 2013b: 2).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

8

Table 4. Reasonable Accommodation Request by Type of Disability  

MI

I/DD

1.  I have a support animal, a cat, which helps me cope with my chronic  I do have some trouble remembering things and I’d like to know if you pain. Will that be okay?

can call me with a reminder that my rent is due a couple of days before it’s due. Could you do that? 

2.  I have a companion dog named Bob. He makes it possible for me 

Could you call me with a reminder that my rent is due a few days 

to go outside. He will need a grassy area by the apartment. Is there before? Sometimes I have trouble remembering things and staying 

someplace he can use?

organized. 

3.  I have a therapeutic cat to help me deal with my illness. I want to I can’t always remember things. Could you come by or call me to 

make sure that’s ok with you.

remind me that my rent is due? 

4.  I have some memory problems. Could you call me with a reminder 

My dog is my support animal and I want to make sure she can stay 

that my rent is due a couple of days before it’s due? 

with me in this apartment.

5.  I will need a reminder that my rent is due a couple of days before. 

My dog provides emotional support for me and it’s important that I can Could you call or come by to remind me? 

keep her in this apartment. Will that be okay?

6.  I sometimes have trouble staying organized and remembering. Could  I have a cat as an emotional support and companion animal. I want to you call or come by to remind me that the rent is due in a couple of be sure it’s ok with you for me to keep her.

days?

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness. 

Training for E-mail Testing

Conducting the E-mail Testing and Quality 

In January 2014, project training was conducted for e-mail test 

Control

administrators. All e-mail test administrators were rigorously 

Sampling of the advertised rental units within markets used 

trained to ensure a common understanding of the project’s 

both automated and manual methods. An automated data-min-

overall purpose, quality assurance responsibilities, and terms 

ing tool (the “scraper tool”) was used to select and collect data 

and definitions. Training topics included an introduction to 

from advertisements on craigslist in each study market. In 

the project, an overview of fair housing and discrimination 

addition to automated sampling, local newspapers and other 

testing, e-mail testing procedures, and a review of testing 

materials featuring rental housing advertisements in the selected 

forms. Special emphasis was placed on the fact that test 

markets were sampled manually, with every seventh post select-

administrators were to be objective collectors of information. 

ed. All ads were filtered using the preselected criteria including 

The confidential nature of all study and testing information 

size of the unit, rental amount, and e-mail address. Ads that did 

was also emphasized with all study participants. This training 

not provide the necessary information, and those describing 

conformed to standard survey research guidelines and replicat-

units set aside for low-income residents, seniors, or people with 

ed those from HUD (2013a).

disabilities, were excluded from the sample. A more detailed 

E-mail test administrators also received technical training 

description of the process for selecting advertised units for the 

for e-mail generation and coding of e-mail responses. This 

overall study is provided in the Sampling Methods section.

training was critical to ensure team members’ understanding 

After rental advertisements from each market were collected, 

of specific coding guidelines and requirements and ensure 

postings from each rental market were placed in a database, 

consistency and efficiency during the testing process. For the 

and matched-pair e-mail testing commenced. During the data 

coding component of the e-mail testing, the training approach 

collection period (April through August 2014), rental advertise-

involved learning a process that could be effectively and 

ments were randomly assigned to matched pairs of e-mails from 

consistently replicated across multiple test administrators. The 

a person with MD and a person without MD.

same e-mail response was initially coded by the whole team. 

Any differences were discussed and resolved. As this coding 

Quality control (QC) was intrinsic to every level of the e-mail 

was critical to the success of the project, this process continued 

testing process. The procedures described in this section were 

for several days until test administrators were uniform in their 

used in identifying housing units and providers to be tested, 

coding of test e-mail responses.

in executing the tests, and in collecting test data to minimize 

the risk of detection by housing providers who might become 

involved in more than one mode of testing.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

9

The scraper tool provided samples from internet-advertised 

inquiries from, and incoming responses to, the test e-mail 

rental units for the e-mail tests. QC mechanisms were em-

accounts daily, and the tracking lists were compared against—

bedded in the scraper tool to remove duplicates, and the test 

•  The number of outgoing and incoming e-mails saved to the 

administrator was responsible for providing a final QC review 

server.

of the pooled rental advertisements generated by the scraper. 

The test coordinator reviewed randomly selected entries and 

•  The number of e-mails coded for each entry in the 

noted any exceptions to the protocols, which were logged in 

tester-level table.

an exception file so the same decision rules could be applied to 

•  Access-generated e-mail contents for randomly selected 

subsequent exceptions. For example, if the scraper tool picked 

entries.

up an apartment listing that was actually part of a single-family 

home, this listing was removed from the sample and logged so 

Only one inquiry was sent to each advertised property, and 

that the same protocol would be followed for all future instances.

there was no followup if a housing provider did not respond to 

an e-mail. Tests remained open throughout the entire testing 

For each e-mail test, the e-mail text, subject lines, and tester 

period, although most responses (90.1 percent) occurred within 

names were designed to appear as natural housing inquiries. 

2 days of the original e-mail. If a response from the advertised 

The tests were also matched at the semantic level, so that 

property was received, testers did not send a return e-mail. For 

level of interest, length of e-mail text, and word choice were 

cases in which a test e-mail received multiple responses from 

all similar. Thus, in all aspects, except for the disability of the 

the same advertised property, all were coded in the Access database.

hypothetical individual who sent the housing inquiry e-mail, 

the paired e-mail tests were matched.

The Microsoft Access program used for coding input was 

custom designed to ensure complete, accurate, and high-quality 

The order of which e-mail was sent first, either the control or 

data. For example, acceptable ranges for responses were pre-

protected tester’s e-mail, was randomized to address the poten-

programmed to help prevent data entry error. In addition, the 

tial effect on the test outcome of the order in which the inquiry 

possibility of incomplete or missing data was prevented by not 

was received by the housing provider. The counterbalance 

allowing a coder to proceed to the next field or screen until all 

device used was a Microsoft Access table, which was created 

fields were complete. During the actual testing phase, data were 

to randomly select the order in which the control or protected 

examined daily and validation was performed on 20 percent 

e-mails were sent. Microsoft Access forms were used to schedule 

of each test administrator’s work using double-entry coding to 

and generate the outgoing e-mails, ensuring consistency in 

respondents’ e-mails to verify responses before inclusion in the 

timing of outgoing e-mails. Both parts of each pair of e-mails 

final datasheet and before being signed off by the test coordi-

were sent to the selected housing provider within a 2-hour 

nator. All tests underwent rigorous review by the study team to 

window. All outgoing e-mails were saved to a computer server 

help ensure high quality, consistency, completeness, accuracy, 

and linked to the Access database so that accuracy could be 

clarity, and usability.

confirmed.

Test administrators used a sample generation form to compose 

Telephone Testing Protocols

e-mails. The scraper tool filled in most of the required fields 

of the form. Required fields were checked for accuracy by the 

As in the MD exploratory testing of DDS 2005, the telephone 

test administrator, and any fields found to be missing were 

tests in this study were conducted by people without MD pur-

completed based on the original advertisement. All the samples 

portedly calling on behalf of someone with MD. Given the large 

for e-mail testing were created within 48 hours of the posting 

number of telephone tests to be conducted over a relatively 

of the advertisement. After e-mails were generated based on 

short period of time and the challenges of recruiting, training, 

the sample generation form, test administrators confirmed that 

and supporting testers with MD noted in DDS 2005, practical 

the e-mail addresses were correct, the e-mail subject lines and 

considerations and concern for the burden on the testers with 

text were different between the e-mails, the e-mail addresses and 

MD led to the decision to use proxy testers who did not have 

sender names matched, and the “when to send” fields were logical.

MD for the telephone testing in this study. Therefore, the 

telephone testing process involved the recruitment and training 

The ordering of paired tests was randomly assigned, and both 

of people without disabilities to serve either as the control tester e-mails within a given pair were sent within 2 hours by an 

or as the protected tester in the role of a proxy calling on behalf 

automatic scheduler. The test coordinator tracked outgoing 

of a relative or friend with MI or I/DD.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

10

After the pretesting, it was determined that the telephone test-

short timeframe created an unacceptable risk of detection by 

ing would also include a request for a reasonable accommoda-

housing providers, and thus the proxy caller for control testers 

tion related to the stated disability on behalf of the person with 

was dropped and the control testers called on their own behalf.

MD. The two reasonable accommodation requests used were 

The tester calling as the proxy for the person with MD posed as 

either (1) a request that the housing provider give the tenant 

a friend or family member (and not a mental health professional 

a reminder to pay rent or (2) a request that the tenant be 

or case manager) of the potential renter. Protected proxies 

allowed to have an assistance animal in the unit.17 One of the 

expressly stated that they were calling for a person with MD 

two accommodation requests was made for each MI or I/DD 

(“My friend/sibling has a mental health disability or illness” for 

telephone test. One-half of the testers for each group requested 

MI or “has a developmental disability” for I/DD).18

one of the two accommodations. Reasonable accommodation 

requests were included in all telephone test profiles and tester 

As with e-mail tests, the disclosure of the protected tester’s dis-

instructions. Reasonable accommodation requests were to be 

ability occurred early in the communication and was designed 

made after the information regarding availability and the rental 

to be unambiguous. Table 5 includes the text of the telephone 

unit was obtained, and thus requests were actually made in 

testing scripts used by the proxy tester to disclose disability. 

629 of the 668 telephone tests conducted, because in 39 of the 

The profiles for both the protected proxy and the control tester 

tests, the conversation with the provider ended before reaching 

included that neither potential renter was currently living in his 

the accommodation request.

or her own rental unit. The proxy caller for the individual with 

MD was instructed to state that the person with MD had been 

Procedures and Scripts for Tester 

living in a psychiatric center for the past year (MI) or had been 

Telephone Calls

living in a group home in the community for the past year (I/

DD). The control tester was instructed to state that he or she 

The order of telephone calls to the housing provider by the 

was returning from school or relocating to the area.

protected tester and the control tester was randomized, and the 

call placements occurred no less than 1 hour and no more than 

Reveal of Disability

4 hours apart. The timing strategy was designed to increase the 

likelihood of speaking with the same housing provider or agent 

Although the proxy for the protected tester disclosed the MD to 

and to minimize the possibility of an incomplete test because 

the housing provider very clearly and early in the conversation, 

the unit was rented between the paired calls.

the proxy was instructed not to provide a specific diagnosis (for 

example, schizophrenia). Instead, any elaboration if requested 

Proxy Relationships

would be provided in the form of information on functional 

aspects of the disability using common descriptions provided 

The telephone testing protocol originally included the use of 

by the focus groups and identified in the literature review 

proxies calling on behalf of both the control and protected 

(for example, has emotional issues, difficulty remembering or 

testers. During the telephone exploratory testing, however, it 

organizing, or needs help with taking care of self or managing 

was determined that use of a proxy for both testers within the 

payments).

Table 5. Telephone Tester Scripts 

Control Tester

Protected Tester

My name is <first name> and I’m calling about the apartment. I’ve been I’m <first name>. My <brother/sister> has a <disability identifier>. He/

in school and I’m looking for my first place.

she has been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m helping him/her look for an apartment.

I’m <first name>. I just moved to town and I’m looking for my first My name is <first name>. My friend has a <disability identifier> and has apartment.

been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m helping him/her look for an apartment. 

17 In the pretesting, one of the reasonable requests used was for an additional key for a caregiver, but this request was determined to be too “soft;” that is, no housing provider objected to providing an additional key, and their consideration of the key request seemed unrelated to the issue of MD—anyone who wanted an additional key could get one. This accommodation request was then changed for the pilot testing to a request that the housing provider give the tenant a reminder to pay rent.

18 The decision to have the proxy be a friend or family member, as opposed to a mental health professional or a case manager, was based on previous research that identified a set of concerns or assumptions that might be triggered by a call from a mental health professional or case manager (for example, severity of disability, need for active treatment, or anticipation of need for significant accommodations).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

11

Examples of functional aspects that were evaluated in the pilot 

All candidates were administered a telephone screening by the 

test included—

test coordinator. This screening was followed by an in-person 

interview during which the candidates’ voices were recorded. 

•  Goes to “X” for mental health treatment/services/support 

The purpose of the recordings was to identify and screen out 

(MI); or receives I/DD services in the community from 

candidates with discernible regional accents or other vocal 

“X.” Control proxies said nothing about this issue.

idiosyncrasies that might contribute to bias.

•  Requires assistance to cognitively or emotionally manage 

A review of testing background and experience level of each 

or experiences difficulty with remembering or emotionally 

candidate informed the preliminary decision on tester suitabil-

managing; has someone who comes in 2 days a week to 

ity. Demographic information, which was used to determine 

help take care of him or her and the apartment (MI and I/

tester pairings, was provided by every candidate. The final 

DD); only if asked by the landlord, additional details may 

decisions on tester pairings—that is, which of the two testers in 

include that the person helps with paying bills, managing 

a pair would assume the control and the protected-class roles 

money, cooking, and laundry. Control proxies said 

and who would be paired with whom—were based on the race, 

nothing about this issue.

age, gender, and experience levels of each tester and were made 

Statements about the functional aspects of the disability did 

by the project’s subject matter experts (SMEs) and the test coor-

not request or require any action on the part of the housing 

dinator. As a result of these screening efforts, the initial training providers and, more importantly, were designed not to be confused 

class consisted entirely of experienced fair housing testers, all of or conflated with a request for a reasonable accommodation.

whom had previously conducted telephone testing.

Reasonable Accommodation Requests

Training for Telephone Testers

Any request for a reasonable accommodation was made at 

Classroom and practical training were conducted in late 

the end of the telephone call after all other information for 

January 2014, over a 2-day period in Philadelphia. The first day 

the test had been collected. The intent of the design was to 

of training consisted of a classroom orientation that covered a 

provide a second level of analysis related to the reasonable 

variety of topics, including—

accommodation request. As with the e-mail testing, reasonable 

accommodation requests were designed to reflect the types of 

•  A history of housing discrimination testing. 

accommodations commonly requested by people with MD as 

•  Types of discriminatory housing practices. 

part of the search for rental housing. Reasonable accommoda-

•  The process of fair housing testing. 

tion requests specifically avoided issues of “source of income” 

•  The strategic goals of the project.

or poverty that could introduce other variables into the test. 

•  The telephone testing data collection process. 

The accommodations sought in this test were—

•  Tester instructions and guidelines. 

•  Need for an assistance animal and a waiver of any 

•  Review of tester forms.

associated fees.

•  Completion of testing assignments. 

•  Request for a reminder from the housing provider by 

•  Narrative writing.

telephone or in person to the person with the MD that 

•  QC practices.

rent was due, as they have difficulty remembering.

Practical training was conducted on the second day of training 

in the call center where the telephone testing would be imple-

Telephone Tester Recruitment

mented. Testers were given hands-on instruction on the use of 

Recruitment of telephone tester candidates began in late 

tester assignment and test report forms and were instructed on 

November 2013. Local fair housing advocacy organizations 

how to use the data repository computer application to store 

and social work departments at universities in the tristate area 

test result data. The training also included instruction on call 

of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania were contacted, 

center telephone use and inbound voicemail access procedures. 

and recommendations for tester candidates were solicited. 

Each trainee made practice test calls to SMEs on site and at 

The recruitment goal was to have both male and female 

remote locations using carefully constructed tester profiles. 

African-American and Caucasian matched pairs of testers 

Trainees received immediate feedback from the test coordina-

participate in training and testing.

tor, SMEs, or both after each call.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

12

Supplemental and Review Training

Telephone tests were designed so that the proxy was to reveal 

the protected potential renter’s MD to the housing provider at 

At times during the 9-month exploratory and pilot testing pe-

the beginning of the conversation using a direct reveal of the 

riod, additional telephone testers were trained to maintain the 

disability and a description of functional needs without provid-

demographic consistency of available testing pairs. Additional 

ing an actual diagnosis.20 The type of functional issues identified 

Caucasian male and female paired teams were added after data 

matched the designated disability group (MI or I/DD).

collection had begun. Supplemental trainings were led by the 

test coordinator and included practice telephone tests to offsite 

All telephone testers were briefed on the nature of the QC 

SMEs and hands-on telephone and computer training.

pro cedures instituted for this study. Some QC processes were 

embedded in the selection of rental housing assignments and 

At the midpoint of the data collection period, SMEs conducted 

test order. For example, the order of the calls within each tele-

a second classroom training session for all testers, during 

phone test (control call made first or protected call made first) was which critical testing protocols and QC procedures were re-randomized to address any potential influence on test outcomes.

viewed and emphasized.19 This 1-day mandatory training was 

conducted at the training facility for all telephone testers.

Rental housing assignments in the various markets were auto-

matically screened via data-mining tools using criteria such 

Conducting Telephone Pilot Testing and 

as rent range, market location, and property owner or agent 

Quality Control Procedures

uniqueness. The test assignment forms were automatically 

populated with information from this data-mining process, then 

Telephone tests were not conducted by individuals with MD, 

printed and provided to each pair of proxies and testers. Testers 

but instead relied on a proxy design. Proxies posed as a friend 

reviewed the test assignment forms and made telephone calls 

or family member seeking rental housing on behalf of an indi-

based on a randomized order. The second telephone call in 

vidual with MD. Control testers contacted the housing provid-

each test was made within 1 to 4 hours after the initial test call 

er on their own behalf. Proxies calling on behalf of an individ-

to reduce the chance of detection but to increase the likelihood 

ual with MD were provided detailed background information 

of speaking to the same property owner or agent.

on the profile of the person on whose behalf they were calling. 

Control testers were provided similar background information 

QC procedures also were in place at the tester level. Proxies and 

for testing purposes. As in all matched-pair testing, the profiles 

testers were trained that, after the completion of each telephone 

of the individuals whose treatment is to be compared (here, 

engagement with a property owner or agent and before the 

the people on whose behalf the proxies were calling) were 

completion of a test narrative, the tester would be debriefed by 

matched to the control tester on all relevant characteristics 

the onsite test coordinator and test details would be discussed. 

except the variable being tested—the presence of MD. Thus, 

Only after this debriefing would the proxy or tester complete 

paired potential renters’ profiles were of the same gender and 

the test narrative and enter the results from the telephone test 

race and assigned personal and financial characteristics that 

form into the database.

were as similar as possible, such as approximate move-in 

Finally, all test forms and narratives for each paired test were 

date, desired rent range, credit score, current employment, 

sent to SMEs for review and approval. Only after this approval 

and income level. To avoid detection by housing providers as 

would a paired test be considered complete.

a result of two testers representing individuals with identical 

characteristics, the profiles of potential renters with disabilities showed them to be slightly more qualified for the housing—for 

In-Person Testing Protocols

example, having a higher income level or credit score—than 

People with MD served exclusively as protected testers for the 

the paired potential renter without a disability. In addition, 

in-person testing in this study. For in-person tests, which had 

to avoid bias caused by the proxies, proxies were of the same 

a smaller sample size and a longer execution period than other 

gender, race, and approximate age as control testers.

modes of testing, the testers with MD (both MI and I/DD) were 

19 Although a variety of issues were covered in this training, the importance of the timing of the protected tester’s identification of disability and the completion of the matched control test were particularly stressed.

20 To compare the results of each paired test, it was essential that the housing provider unambiguously know from the beginning of the call that the protected potential renter had MD. The proxies clearly and directly stated to the housing provider at the start of the conversation that they were calling on behalf of someone with MD (MI or I/DD).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

13

accompanied by someone without MD posing as a friend. This 

Test coordinators created test assignments based on the infor-

protocol of a companion accompanying the protected tester 

mation in the rental advertisements and developed profiles for 

replicates what was adopted in the DDS 2005 for in - person test assignments that matched the paired control and protected 

testing. The protected tester-and-companion team approach 

testers on their relevant personal and financial characteristics—

provided support and assistance for the testers with disabilities 

for example, gender, race, approximate age, income, credit, 

to ensure that test protocols were followed and that reporting 

financial resources, employment, household composition, and 

was complete and accurate.

housing preferences such as the unit size, rent, and date need-

ed—and included an assigned e-mail address and telephone 

Control testers were people without MD and were not accom-

number for each tester (which were monitored by the test 

panied. The tests were designed to reveal whether rental hous-

coordinators). Assignment forms for protected testers included 

ing providers treated testers differently on the basis of MD. In 

instructions on revealing their MD. All testers were seeking 

each test, the protected tester’s MD was revealed to the housing 

their first apartment and were financially qualified for the units 

provider by the protected tester at the beginning of the visit 

they sought. The protected testers were either living in the 

to the property. In making this disclosure, the protected tester 

community (in a group home or with family) or coming out of 

used a direct reveal and description of functional needs with-

an institutional setting. Control testers had been living at home 

out providing an actual diagnosis. The disability identified was 

with family or away at school. To avoid identical characteristics 

the same for all testers in each disability group (MI or I/DD). 

that might lead to detection, protected testers’ profiles made 

As in all matched-pair testing, the paired testers were matched 

them slightly more qualified for the housing being sought; for 

as to all relevant characteristics except for the variable being 

example, having a slightly higher income level or length of 

tested—the MD. Paired testers were of the same gender and 

employment. Test coordinators reviewed the assignment forms 

race and were assigned personal and financial characteristics 

with testers before each test.

designed to be as similar as possible, including, as described in 

more detail subsequently, unit size needed, potential move - in Protected testers were accompanied on property visits by 

date, desired rent range, credit, current employment, and in-

companions who provided support to testers during data col-

come level. To avoid detection by housing providers as a result 

lection. For example, when testers forgot to ask a question of a 

of two testers having identical characteristics, protected tester 

property owner or agent, “got off track,” or “froze,” companion 

profiles were slightly more qualified for the housing being 

testers were able to naturally prompt the tester or provide a 

sought; for example, having a slightly higher income level or 

response. Companion testers also reassured testers and helped 

length of employment.

them feel less nervous when in a new area of their community. 

Companion testers also assisted by taking notes, organizing 

Procedures and Scripts for In-Person Tests

and remembering information, helping out when unanticipated 

situations arose, and in some cases providing transportation. 

Advance calls were made by test coordinators before each 

Both testers and companions approved of this model, reporting 

in-person visit to confirm that the housing unit remained 

that a companion’s presence helped some testers feel less 

available, the location, and office hours and to determine 

anxious because immediate support was available, that testers 

whether an appointment would be needed to see the unit. The 

and companion testers complemented one another during data 

need for appointments differed in the two cities, with nearly 

collection by offering different ideas, and that working as a pair 

all Chicago properties requiring appointments but most of 

made the experience more enjoyable.21 Testers and companion 

the Washington, D.C. properties not (allowing for the testers 

testers also noted that the presence of a companion may also 

to “walk in” to visit the properties). Appointment contacts, if 

have added credibility to the disclosure of a disability by testers.

necessary, were made primarily by telephone calls within 3 

days of the publication of the advertisement by the companion 

Paired testers attempted to visit an assigned property on the 

testers (for MI and I/DD testers) and by the control testers. 

same day, but always visited within 24 hours of each other. 

Testers’ companions did not reveal that they were looking 

The order for whether the control or protected tester visited 

for an apartment for someone else, and no disclosure of any 

the property first was randomized, as previously described. 

disability was made during the call.

21 The study team thought it was important to ask testers in what situations they believed they needed assistance (for example, writing, reading, or having a quiet room in which to complete forms) and to be flexible in responding to testers’ emergent needs. The need for support decreased over time as testers increased their skills and comfort. This support improved project efficiencies by better enabling a smaller group of testers to comfortably conduct multiple tests rather than having a larger pool of testers who might conduct only a single test.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

14

Testers used protocols designed to allow for an assessment of 

agents before information about the unit was discussed. To 

differential treatment; for example, protected testers revealed 

accomplish this reveal, protected testers were instructed to 

their MD very early in the conversation, before information on 

greet a housing provider or agent, identify themselves by first 

the unit was obtained. During site visits, testers inquired about 

name, and state either “I have a developmental disability” or “I 

the advertised property and gathered information on the avail-

have a mental health disability.” Their companions were then 

ability of the advertised unit or other similar units, addresses 

introduced as someone who was helping them to find rental 

and unit numbers, rental amounts, the application process, 

housing and specifically was tasked with remembering what 

fees, utilities, other terms and conditions, and amenities. 

questions to ask about the unit and helping to take notes about 

Testers asked to see the unit advertised and were willing to see 

the apartment.22

a model unit or other similar units. Testers were encouraged to 

The protected testers were not to name their specific disability 

take notes during their visits.

by providing a diagnosis or condition but were to reveal only 

Immediately after each test, the testers notified the test 

the broad category of “developmental disability” or “mental 

coordinator that the test was completed, filled out the test 

health disability.” Test assignment forms provided each tester 

report form, and wrote a narrative. Protected testers and their 

with information about how the disability affected the tester’s 

companions completed test reports and narratives together. 

daily life (for example, difficulty remembering things or 

Testers turned their reports into the test coordinator by mid-

difficulty staying organized). This information was mentioned 

night of the day of the test and the narrative within 24 hours. 

during the course of the test. See Table 6 for examples.

Test coordinators reviewed the completed test reports and 

Test assignment forms also provided information about 

narratives and debriefed each tester. Test results were entered 

protected testers’ current housing situation (for example, living 

into the testing database by the study team, and a weekly 

with family or in an institution, such as a nursing home or psy-

report of completed tests was produced to monitor progress. 

chiatric facility), which was also revealed at some point during 

All documentation from in-person tests was reviewed and 

the test. Test assignment forms for control testers also included 

approved by a designated member of the testing QC team.

information about their current housing situation. Control 

testers were instructed to tell a housing provider or agent that 

Tester Profile and Reveal Strategy

this was their first apartment search because they had been 

It was critical to the test design that protected testers reveal 

living in the housing assigned in their profile (for example, with 

their disability at the beginning of the interaction so that the 

family or away at school).

presence of their MD was known to the housing providers or 

Table 6. Examples of How MD May Affect Functional Aspects of Life and Maintenance of Housing Functional Aspects of MD

MI

I/DD

Affiliation with a 

Goes to “X” for mental health treatment/services/support Receives I/DD services in the community from “X”

community service 

provider 

Needs supports 

(1)  Requires assistance to help with organizing and 

(1)  Requires assistance to help with organizing and 

with housing-related 

keeping track of things.

keeping track of things.

management activities 

(2)  Has difficulty with remembering.

(2)  Has difficulty with remembering.

(3)  Has someone who comes in 2 days a week to help 

(3)  Has someone who comes in 2 days a week to help 

take care of him or her and the apartment (both).

take care of him or her and the apartment (both).

Only if asked by the landlord, additional details may 

Only if asked by the landlord, additional details may 

include that the person helps with paying bills, managing  include that the person helps with paying bills, managing money, cooking, and laundry.

money, cooking, and laundry.

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

22 Pretesting was used to evaluate the manner in which the MD was conveyed to the housing provider and to highlight any detection issues that might arise either when setting up an appointment to visit a property or during the actual visit.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

15

In-Person Tester Recruitment and 

understood his or her role, and the potential tester’s comfort 

Training

with pretending to be searching for an apartment and disclosing 

his or her disability during the housing search process.

Test coordinators from community-based fair housing testing 

organizations in the two metropolitan areas selected for 

Test coordinators also noted the importance of identifying can-

in-person testing, Access Living in Chicago and The Equal 

didates who would be good companion testers. Strong rapport 

Rights Center in Washington, D.C., recruited potential testers 

between a tester with disabilities and his or her companion was 

from their existing tester pools (particularly for control testers 

key to the tester’s comfort and to the quality and efficiency of 

with no disability) and from a variety of community groups 

testing. This rapport was accomplished by creating opportu-

and organizations in which people with MI and I/DD actively 

nities throughout the project—from initial training, to during 

participated or from whom they received housing or commu-

practice tests, and through the completion of all test assign-

nity living services. These organizations’ extensive contacts and 

ments—for each protected tester and the assigned companion 

continual networking with community groups and people with 

to get to know and become comfortable with each other. Test 

disabilities were essential to this effort and would be difficult 

coordinators regularly monitored how these relationships 

for organizations not familiar with, and embedded within, 

progressed. If one member of a pair was not comfortable, pairs 

disability communities to replicate. The use of these communi-

were rematched.

ty-based testing organizations was a critical component of the 

Separate training sessions were held for each of the three 

project and a key to success in actively supporting people with 

groups of testers—MI, I/DD (together with their companions), 

I/DD and PD during the in-person testing.

and control testers. Based on initial insights from multiple focus 

To establish a pool of testers, test coordinators needed to allo-

groups and discussions with the expert panel at the start of the 

cate significant time to the tester recruitment process, initially 

project, training approaches were modified for each group to 

recruiting about three times the number of testers needed 

maximize their learning. For example, testers with I/DD had 

and continuing to recruit and train additional testers during 

project information broken into smaller units, followed imme-

the actual testing period. For example, in some cases, most 

diately by opportunities to practice a small skill, leading up to 

notably among potential testers with I/DD, availability and 

practicing a full test under controlled circumstances, and finally 

reliability were issues (for example, scheduling training, not 

moving on to an actual practice test in the field. Testers with 

showing up for scheduled training, the availability of reliable 

MI received initial information in one sitting and then practiced 

transportation, and the need to navigate new transportation 

different scenarios.

routes without support). The lack of availability and reliability 

The study team maintained flexibility in the tester training 

was particularly problematic given the need to coordinate the 

protocols, simplifying and limiting the quantity of background 

schedules of protected testers with companion testers for initial 

information and lecture for the MI and I/DD groups and 

training, practice testing, and conducting each in-person test. 

focusing on role-play, practice exercises, and open discussions 

Because of employment disparities among the populations, 

to enable the testers to gain a level of comfort with both the 

people with MD were found to be more available to work 

testing process and working with a companion.23 For the MI 

as testers, but the ability to recruit control testers was more 

and I/DD groups, training materials deemphasized complicated 

challenging because of their higher employment rate.

text, reduced the number of ideas presented at one time, and 

Test coordinators communicated extensively with potential 

incorporated graphics, photos, and images to illustrate more 

testers to determine whether the tester’s abilities matched the 

abstract points such as civil rights.

testing and reporting responsibilities involved in the testing 

Frequent breaks were provided during all training sessions to 

process, to assess whether candidates could complete the 

allow for testers to assimilate new information and experiences.

essential tasks required of a tester. In these interactions, test 

coordinators provided potential testers a candid and thorough 

The training sessions also helped test coordinators in making 

description of the project and their expected role (including an 

final determinations about a potential tester’s involvement in 

emphasis on the responsibilities of being a tester versus other 

the actual in-person tests.

roles within the project), assessing how the potential tester 

23 Trainings included opportunities first for testers to observe testing skits performed by test coordinators and project staff, and then for testing pairs to actively engage in several different testing scenarios with role-play (moving from working in pairs with an assigned project staff member to role-play in front of the whole group and getting feedback afterward). 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

16

Conducting In-Person Pilot Testing and 

collection. Logic and other QC checks are imbedded in the program 

Quality Control Procedures

to facilitate a high level of accuracy when recording data. In 

addition, e-mail testers were assigned specific markets to facili-

The in-person pilot testing was conducted in Chicago and 

tate familiarity with local address formats and to reduce errors.

Washington, D.C., from June to November 2014. Samples of 

available rental units were gathered from rental advertisement 

Telephone Testing

contact data extracted from online rental advertisements by the 

automated scraper tool and weekly random selections of ap-

Telephone testers were paired into teams, and the team config-

proximately 20 to 25 rental property advertisements provided 

uration remained the same over the course of the testing, absent 

by the study team to the test coordinators in each city.

illness or other uncontrollable events. After the completion of 

each test, results were reviewed at least two times, once by the 

Overall Data Collection Oversight, 

QC supervisor and a second time by senior testing experts. The 

reviews validated the tests, ensured protocols were followed, 

Management, and Quality Control

and confirmed that the information recorded was complete, 

clear, and unambiguous.

For each mode of testing, testers received training and 

retraining as needed during the data collection period. During 

initial training, testers engaged in role-playing, using the actual 

In-Person Testing

testing protocols. This process facilitated learning and was the 

In-person tests were reviewed by the test coordinator within 

basis for the evaluation of tester capabilities and an assessment 

24 hours of test completion. In addition, each paired test was 

of whether additional training was needed. This process of 

reviewed by senior testing experts to ensure the complex testing 

evaluation continued throughout training, exploratory testing, 

protocols were followed and to confirm that the information 

and actual pilot testing.

recorded was complete, clear, and unambiguous.

In all testing modes, overall, QC was implemented with stringent 

E-mail Testing

reviews of protocol and processes throughout the data collec-

The research team used a proprietary Microsoft Access program 

tion period.

that was customized for this particular paired testing data 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

17

Sampling Methods

Sampling Frame

markets (population of 2,500,000 or more). As noted, tests 

in all markets were equally divided between those focused on 

The sampling frame for the paired testing in this project was 

individuals with MI and those with I/DD.

designed with the goal of completing 1,000 matched-pair tests: 

500 matched-pair tests to assess discrimination against people 

To avoid issues of detection, small markets with populations 

with MI and 500 matched-pair tests to assess discrimination 

less than 500,000 were excluded from all pilot testing. Tele-

against people with I/DD (Table 7). An additional 100 paired 

phone and e-mail testing were conducted in all three market 

tests were to be conducted by e-mail specifically to assess the 

size types, whereas in-person testing was conducted only in the 

willingness of housing providers to make reasonable accom-

very large markets.

modations for people with the two identified categories of MD.

Table 8 summarizes the sampling frame for the project and 

Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

how the 1,000 matched-pair tests were allocated among the 

Test allocation was guided by market and population char-

three selected rental market strata—medium-sized markets 

acteristics. As shown in Table 9, the number of test markets 

(population of 500,000 to 1,250,000), large-sized markets 

selected within each stratum for the pilot testing mirrors the 

(population of 1,250,000 to 2,500,000), and very large-sized 

distribution of the population across metropolitan statistical 

Table 7. Sampling Frame for People With MD, by Test Type 

Matched-Pair Test Type

Total

MI

I/DD

E-mail

200

100

100

E-mail + reasonable accommodation

100

50

50

Telephone

600

300

300

In person

100

50

50

Total

1,000

500

500

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

Table 8. Rental Market Sampling Frame 

Market Population Size

Matched-Pair Test Type

Total

Medium 

Large 

Very Large 

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

 (2,500,000 or more)

n = 4

n = 2

n = 2

E-mail

300

20

40

240

Telephone

600

200

200

200

In person

100

0

0

100

Total

1,000

220

240

540

Table 9. Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

Market Population Size

Total

Medium 

Large 

Very Large 

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

(2,500,000 or more)

U.S. distribution

Percent of population

21

21

58

100

Percent of all markets

56

23

21

100

Pilot testing

Number of markets

4

2

2

8a

Percent of markets

50

25

25

100

Percent of paired tests

20

20

60

100

a Although the plan was to test in four medium-sized markets, possible detection before the completion of data collection in one of the markets, New Haven-Milford, CT, caused the addition of Syracuse, NY. Thus, nine total markets were included in the final analysis.

Source of U.S. population and market distribution: 2010 American Community Survey, SF1, Table P1

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

18

areas (MSA) and micropolitan statistical areas based on 2010 

that each selected market contained a typical (within a range) 

American Community Survey (ACS) data. The percentage 

proportion of people with MD and a sufficient population from 

distribution of paired tests across strata similarly mirrors the 

which testers for in-person testing could be drawn. These data 

population percentage distribution based on 2010 census data. 

are summarized in Table 10.

For example, because approximately 20 percent of the U.S. 

Markets were also differentiated by whether the state had an 

population resides in markets with populations ranging from 

Olmstead Plan, any active  Olmstead-related lawsuits, or both26 

0.5 to 1.25 million, 20 percent of the total number of paired 

and by if the state received Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

tests was implemented across markets of this size.

Services, or CMS, funds to transition people with MD out of 

institutions to the community via a Money Follows the Person 

Sample of Metropolitan Areas

grant. If the state met either of these conditions, markets were 

further differentiated by how many people had transitioned and 

Based on the sampling design and sample frame, the selection 

whether the state had met its transition goals.27 The presence 

of markets and allocation of tests across markets were con-

and strength of state-level efforts to move individuals with 

ducted in two stages: (1) identify and characterize the pool of 

disabilities from institutional settings to community-based 

potential markets for inclusion and (2) select the markets for 

settings was presumed to have an effect on rental markets by 

testing.

increasing awareness of the rights of people with disabilities 

under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities 

Stage 1: Identifying and Characterizing 

Act among both housing providers and prospective tenants, 

Potential Markets

thus potentially affecting testing.

Using MSA population data, 374 MSAs were divided into four 

categories based on size—270 small-sized markets (population 

Stage 2: Selecting the Study Markets

less than 500,000), 58 medium-sized markets (population of 

This study used a purposive sampling approach to identify 

500,000 to 1,250,000), 25 large-sized markets (population 

specific markets for testing based on population size and certain 

of 1,250,000 to 2,500,000), and 22 very large-sized markets 

characteristics, as described previously. A purposive approach 

(population of 2,500,000 or more).24

was used for several reasons.

To further differentiate these markets, the proportion of people 

•  The selected markets had to reflect a proportion of people 

with any disability and proportion of people with cognitive 

with MD that was typical (in other words, an unusually 

disabilities, based on the 2009–2011 ACS and the 2010 

high or low percentage of people with disabilities should 

census, were considered.25 These data were included to ensure 

not reside in the market). 

Table 10. Distribution of Population With Disabilities and Proportion With Cognitive Disabilities, 2009–2011 

Proportion of Population With Disabilities 

Proportion of Population With Cognitive Disabilities 

MSA 

Number 

(%)

(%)

Size

of MSAs

Median

Average

Minimum

Maximum

Median

Average

Minimum

Maximum

Very large

22

9.6

10.2

7.8

13.6

30.5

31.1

20.8

48.2

Large

25

11.5

11.9

7.7

19.8

22.6

24.9

9.3

53.6

Medium

58

12.2

12.2

7.2

16.4

22.9

23.9

15.0

40.0

MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Sources: 2009–11 American Community Survey; 2010 census

24 To avoid issues of detection, the 270 small-sized markets were excluded from all pilot testing.

25 The ACS and census count an individual as having a cognitive disability if he or she reported that, due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition, they had 

“serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.” The term “cognitive disabilities” is formally used within census data to be inclusive of the same categories as the term “mental disabilities” as used by HUD. It includes MI and I/DD. As the source of the data in Table 9 is from census data, the term cognitive disabilities is used. For all other purposes of this study, the term “mental disabilities” is used.

26 This grouping includes any plan instituted as a result of a judgment or settlement, or any pending litigation, arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Olmstead v. L.C. , 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (unjustified segregation of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act).

27 Data for these measures were attained from Ng, Wong, and Harrington (2013), on Olmstead Plan and active lawsuits, and from Denny-Brown et al. (2011), on People transitioned as of June 2011 and 2010 Transition Goal achieved.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

19

•  The selected markets for in-person testing had to contain 

and the census) as a proportion of all people with disabilities.28 

a sufficient population of people with MD from which 

Using these data and the previously discussed criteria, the final 

testers could be drawn.

market pool contained 17 medium and 7 large MSAs (see Table 

11) based on those rates that fell approximately between the 

•  The selected markets for in-person testing had to include 

25th and 75th percentiles for disability and cognitive disability.

local fair housing and enforcement agencies that had 

expertise in working with people with MD.

These markets preliminarily selected were then discussed with 

the expert panel regarding any specific factors such as  Olmstead 

•  To the extent possible, the research team sought to measure 

implementation activities and disability-related fair housing 

any effects of  Olmstead on differential treatment of people 

litigation that might bias sample selection and results. The 

with MD; thus, at least one market in a state that is imple-

panel’s feedback was taken into consideration in making the 

menting an  Olmstead Plan was intentionally selected.

final market selections. As a final step, an analysis of secondary 

After applying these criteria to produce a pool of potential 

data on key characteristics relevant to the testing process of 

mar kets, the list was narrowed further by identifying those 

each market was conducted, including an assessment of the 

markets that represent a typical mix of people with disabilities 

percentage of total housing that was available for rent, rental 

relative to the rest of the population and specifically a typical 

vacancy rates, and craigslist coverage of housing rentals.

mix of people with cognitive disabilities (as defined by ACS 

Table 11. Pool of Possible Markets (MSAs) Based on Statistical Criteria for Inclusion State-Level Data

MSA

Has an  

Active Disability 

People Transitioned 

2010 Transition  

Olmstead Plan

Lawsuits

as of June 2011

Goal Achieved

Large markets

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

Yes

Yes

1,139

Yes

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

No

No

NA

NA

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

Yes

Yes

145

No

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN

No

No

NA

NA

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA

No

No

NA

NA

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA

Yes

Yes

537

No

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC

No

No

269

Yes

Medium markets

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY

Yes

Yes

370

Yes

Albuquerque, NM

No

No

NA

NA

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ

No

Yes

719

Yes

Bakersfield-Delano, CA

Yes

Yes

537

No

Baton Rouge, LA

No

No

164

No

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

Yes

Yes

370

Yes

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL

No

Yes

NA

NA

Columbia, SC

No

No

NA

NA

Fresno, CA

Yes

Yes

537

No

Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC

No

No

NA

NA

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA

No

Yes

719

Yes

Jackson, MS

Yes

Yes

NA

NA

New Haven-Milford, CT

Yes

Yes

561

Yes

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA

No

No

164

No

North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL

No

Yes

NA

NA

Rochester, NY

Yes

Yes

370

Yes

Syracuse, NY

Yes

Yes

370

Yes

MSA = metropolitan statistical area. NA = data not reported or available for that MSA.

Source: Final Research Design & Data Collection Plan, approved September 13, 2013

28 As shown in Table 10, the range of people with disabilities varies across the MSAs (the range is the difference between minimum and maximum values) and is much narrower than ranges observed in the distribution of people with cognitive disabilities within the group with disabilities. The data on cognitive disabilities from the ACS are imputed. The observed higher variability in the percentage of people with cognitive disabilities within the population with disabilities per market may be a result of how the imputation was done, or it may be representative of the true distribution.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

20

The nine MSA markets selected for this project are identified in 

Selection of Advertised Units

Table 12.29

Analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) data reveals 

Table 13 shows the planned sample allocation of paired 

that most people who moved into a rental housing unit in the 

tests across the selected markets within each size category. 

previous year reported they found their current apartment via 

Approximately 60 percent of the allocated matched-pair tests 

word of mouth (34 percent), followed by a sign outside of a 

fall within the very large markets and 20 percent fall in each of 

building (11 percent), craigslist (11 percent), and the large 

the large- and medium-sized markets.

category of “other.”30 For the purpose of this study, neither 

word of mouth nor signs on buildings were effective means for 

identifying the large numbers of available units necessary for 

paired testing. Housing providers also use multiple outlets to 

advertise their available units, however—especially in online 

markets, such as craigslist and other sources.

Table 12. Selected Markets by Size and  Olmstead Status

Market (MSA) Size

Olmstead Status

Very Large

Large

Medium

Olmstead Plan or active  Olmstead-

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

Fresno, CA

related settlement

New Haven-Milford, CT

Syracuse, NY

No  Olmstead Plan

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, 

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--

Albuquerque, NM

DC-VA-MD-WV

Franklin, TN

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA

MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Table 13. Sample Allocation Plan Across Communities and Test Types by Market Size Very Large Markets 

Large Markets 

Medium Markets 

(2,500,000 or more)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

Matched-

Chicago-

Washington-

Cincinnati-

Pair Test 

Joliet-

Arlington-

Nashville-

Middletown,  Albuquerque, 

New Haven- Total

Type

Naperville, 

Alexandria, 

Davidson--

Milford, CT/ 

IL-IN-WI

DC-VA-MD- Murfreesboro-

OH-KY-IN

NM

Fresno, CA

Harrisburg-

Carlisle, PA Syracuse, NYa

WV

-Franklin, TN

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

Matched-pair tests with reasonable accommodation request

E-mail

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

100

Telephone

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

600

Total

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

28

28

28

28

27

27

27

27

700

Matched-pair tests without reasonable accommodation request

E-mail

50

50

50

50

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

200

In person

25

25

25

25

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

100

Total

75

75

75

75

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

300

Total matched-pair tests

E-mail

60

60

60

60

10

10

10

10

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

300

Telephone

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

600

In person

25

25

25

25

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

100

Total

135

135

135

135

60

60

60

60

28

28

28

28

28

27

27

27

1,000

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

a Possible detection in one of the markets, the New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), before the completion of data collection caused the addition of the Syracuse, NY MSA. Thus, nine total markets were included in the final analysis.

29 The MSA selection process placed priority on including markets consistent with the expert panel’s criteria for sufficient Craigslist coverage, including markets with and without  Olmstead provisions, and on accounting for the number of rental units and vacancy rates. The MSA selection process also considered geographic representation. Given the total number of markets included in the sampling frame and the need to delineate by  Olmstead status for markets with sufficient Craigslist coverage, however, those factors took precedence over a perfect regional distribution of study markets.

30 Note that, given the challenges of determining in the AHS if a person has a disability, these data were not further manipulated to produce cross-tabulations by disability. Also, the data include all people with disabilities, which means they include people with both physical disabilities and MD.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

21

Therefore, the sample of units for possible testing was drawn 

•  Using software to track and filter out duplicate rental 

primarily from craigslist. Print sources were also included as 

advertisements within a specified timeframe (for example, 

possible sources of rental advertising, particularly in markets 

3 weeks). 

where craigslist is not sufficient and local newspapers did 

•  Ensuring that no housing provider was tested more than 

not have an online presence for apartment rental listings to 

once for the same type of MD.

generate a sufficient sample.31

•  Lengthening the timeframe between tests if an advertised 

Basing their observations on the literature review and focus 

unit was selected for both MI and I/DD testing.

group feedback, the study team noted that people with MD 

use a variety of outlets to search for available rental housing, 

•  Staggering the tests to ensure that the different modes of 

including mental health and social service agencies. The study 

testing (e-mail, telephone, and in person) were conducted 

team intentionally sampled from sources used by all renters, 

sequentially—e-mail first, then telephone, then in-person—

excluding any outlets that specifically help people with MD get 

with the e-mail and telephone testing in the Chicago and 

into subsidized housing, that have access to a pool of landlords 

Washington, D.C. markets administered first, before the 

with whom the agency has an existing relationship, or both. 

in-person testing in those markets began.

These sources were excluded to obtain a neutral market sample 

of units that had not been prescreened to accept people with 

Sampling of Units

disabilities and that would therefore reflect the rental search 

experience in the general market.

Sampling of the advertised rental units within MSAs was 

accomplished using two methods—one automated and the 

Risk of Detection

other manual.

A key concern when selecting properties to test was detection 

Under the automated method, to streamline the sampling of 

by housing providers that testing was under way in their mar-

advertised housing units, a data scraper tool was used to select 

ket. For example, testing for discrimination against two sub-

and collect data from advertisements on craigslist in each study 

groups (MI and I/DD) within the same market could increase 

MSA. The tool filtered the advertisements using the preselected 

the risk of detection if the same housing provider is contacted 

criteria in table 14, excluding advertisements that did not 

for each subgroup. Craigslist and local online newspaper apart-

Table 14. Criteria for Inclusion in/Exclusion From Unit 

ment rental ads can likewise contain multiple advertisements 

Sample 

from the same housing provider. For example, in housing 

markets where realty agencies list available rental units, such 

Criteria for inclusion in unit sample

agencies can post multiple advertisements by multiple agents 

1.  Proper unit size (studio, one bedroom, or two bedrooms).a

within the same company. If those agents received inquiries 

2.  Rent within specified range.

for different available rental units from testers using the same 

3.  Adequate provider contact information available, including—

or similar profiles, they might have detected the testing, which 

•  Unit address (for in-person testing).

could have, in turn, affected the results of the study.

•  Telephone number (for telephone and in-person testing).

•  E-mail address (for e-mail testing).

One strategy to minimize the likelihood of detection by a housing 

Criteria for exclusion from unit sample

provider during testing would have been to sample housing 

providers only once within each MSA. This strategy, however, 

1. Housing restricted solely to seniors and/or people with disabilities (for example, single-site housing).

would have resulted in a dramatic reduction in the pool of 

2. Rents outside specified range (highest and lowest 10% were 

housing providers and testable properties, given that housing 

thrown out, to exclude misplaced or misleading listings).

providers may have multiple sites within a market, use a 

3. For in-person testing sample, recent (within 30 days) selection for man agement company or leasing agent that represents many 

e-mail or telephone testing.

properties, or both. Instead of adopting this strategy, other 

a Two-bedroom units, a unit size still credibly sought by an individual, precautions to avoid detection were taken. These precautions 

were included because of a limited number of available one-bedroom 

included—

units, especially for in-person tests.

31 A multipronged approach to marketing units is encouraged by various resources for rental housing providers. See, for example, Wagner (2008).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

22

provide the rent or other pertinent information for each testing 

data for a housing provider that was already in the database 

mode. Table 14 summarizes the criteria for inclusion and 

(phone number, address, agent/owner name, e-mail addresses, 

exclusion used in this sampling.

and so on), (2) referenced units that had already been included 

in the study sample, or (3) included contact information in the 

Under the manual sampling method, local newspapers and 

advertisement that matched any of the contact information for 

other materials featuring rental housing advertisements in the 

an advertisement that had been included in the study within 

selected markets were sampled, with every 7seventh post se-

the previous 3 weeks. Information on properties ultimately 

lected. Filters analogous to those identified for the data scraper 

selected for testing were then provided weekly to test coordina-

tool were also applied in the manual sampling process.

tion teams for each MSA for assignment to testers.32

The automatically and manually mined advertisements were 

Figure 1 illustrates the data collection process, from the identifi-

loaded daily into a Microsoft Access database. Data entry 

cation of sample rental unit advertisements, through the testing, 

personnel then reviewed and removed any new advertisement 

to the analysis of results.

that met one of the following three conditions: (1) included 

Figure 1. Flow of Sample Selection and Testing Process

Sample/Testing Process Flow

E-mail testing

Automated and 

Conduct 200 

manual aggregation 

paired tests

of craigslist local 

(0.5–1.25M, 1.25–2.5M, 

listing sample

2.5M+ markets)

Conduct 100 paired 

tests w/RA request*

(0.5–1.25M, 1.25–2.5M, 

2.5M+ markets)

*Protected tester only

Analysis database

Sampling database

Testing data, tester forms, 

original housing posts, etc.

Telephone testing

Conduct 600 paired 

tests

(0.5–1.25M, 1.25–2.5M, 

2.5M+ markets)

Manual aggregation of 

other (e.g. newspaper) 

local listing sample

In-person testing

Conduct 100 paired 

tests

(2.5M+ markets only)

RA = reasonable accommodation.

32 This method of avoiding detection was successful in M. Davis and Company, Inc.’s most recent housing discrimination study (HUD, 2013a).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

23

Analysis of Testing Findings

Summary of Tests Conducted

Based on the existence, nature, and extent of response from 

housing providers, paired testing using an e-mail protocol 

During the pilot testing period, 1,128 paired tests were ad-

enables researchers to observe two different levels of differential 

ministered. Paired testing was conducted using three different 

treatment. The first level of differential treatment that can be 

modes of testing protocols: e-mail, telephone, and in-person 

observed is the disparity between the number of tests for which 

testing. Some subset of both telephone tests and e-mail tests 

the control tester received a response from the housing provider 

included a request for a reasonable accommodation by the 

and the protected tester did not. The lack of a response to the 

protected tester. Table 15 summarizes the distribution of tests 

protected tester when the control tester received a response is 

by test mode.

considered in measuring discrimination.

Table 15. Total Tests Conducted by Test Mode 

Figure 2. Response Rate of E-mail Paired Tests

Test Mode

Tests

E-mail 

359

(Subset of e-mail tests with a reasonable accommodation 

(78)

request)

Total e-mail tests conducted

Telephone 

668

n = 359

(Subset of telephone tests with a reasonable accommodation  (629)

request)

In person

101

Total tests 

1,128

Some response from provider

No response from provider

n = 187

n = 172

E-mail Testing

Table 16 summarizes the number and distribution of e-mail 

Control 

Protected 

tests administered for people with MI and people with I/DD 

tester 

tester 

across three distinct market sizes. Via e-mail, 359 matched-pair 

received a 

received a 

response 

response 

tests were administered, with approximately 73.54 percent of 

n = 154

n = 124

the tests conducted within the very large markets, 17.5 percent 

within the large markets, and the remaining 8.9 percent within 

Only 

Only control 

Both 

the medium markets.

protected 

tester 

testers 

tester 

received a 

received a 

received a 

Figure 2 represents the response rates of the 359 paired e-mail 

response 

response

response 

n = 91

tests that were conducted during the pilot testing.

n = 63

n = 33

Table 16. E-mail Sample Allocation by Market Size 

Market Size

Matched-Pair Test Type

Total

Very Large 

Large 

Medium 

(2,500,000 or More)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

Matched-pair tests

MI

120

15

8

143

I/DD

121

10

7

138

Total

241

25

15

281

Matched-pair tests with request for reasonable accommodation

MI

13

19

8

40

I/DD

10

19

9

38

Total

23

38

17

78

Sum total

264

63

32

359

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

24

The second level of differential treatment that can be observed 

In-Person Testing

is the difference in how the housing providers interact with the 

Table 18 summarizes the number and distribution of in-person 

testers by tracking the incidence of positive treatment, such as 

matched-pair tests, which were conducted only in the two very 

stating whether the unit was available or inviting the potential 

large markets. This mode of testing did not include a reasonable 

renter to contact the housing provider. To be included in the 

accommodation request.

second-level analysis for differential treatment, both members 

of the pair needed to receive an e-mail response within a given 

Table 18. In-Person Sample Allocation by Location 

time period. In this study, in 91 paired e-mail tests, both 

testers in the pair received a response from the housing pro-

Matched-Pair 

Market

Test Type

Total

vider within the requisite timeframe. The outcomes observed 

Chicago

Washington, D.C.

MI

26

24

50

in these pairs were used to measure different dimensions of 

I/DD

26

25

51

discrimination against people with MD.

Total

52

49

101

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

Telephone Testing

Table 17 summarizes the number and distribution of tele-

The 101 tests completed exceeded the target goal. The distribu-

phone tests conducted for people with MI and I/DD across 

tion across disability types was virtually equal, with one extra 

three market sizes. Data are differentiated into three sets of 

test in the I/DD sample. The pairs were matched so that both 

tests: (1) the total number of all matched-pair tests with and 

testers within a pair had the same race and gender; however, 

without an accompanying reasonable accommodation request, 

the total tester pool was not evenly split across race or gender. 

(2) the number of matched-pair tests with an accompanying 

Overall, the sample had more women than men for the MI tests 

reasonable accommodation request, and (3) the number of 

and more men than women for the I/DD tests. MI testing pairs 

matched-pair test without a reasonable accommodation request.

were also more likely to be African-American, and I/DD testing 

pairs were more likely to be Caucasian.

Of the 668 telephone tests conducted, the protected tester made 

a reasonable accommodation request in 629 (94.2 percent). 

Measuring Differential Treatment

Approximately 30.4 percent of the tests were conducted in the 

very large markets, 39.4 percent in the large markets, and the 

Results from the e-mail, telephone, and in-person tests were 

rest in the medium markets.

analyzed to determine whether the protected tester with MD 

was treated unfavorably relative to the control tester. This 

determination was based on information received by the testers 

during their interactions with the housing provider, which 

were characterized by the research team as either favorable or 

unfavorable. Previous studies of housing discrimination have 

Table 17. Telephone Testing Allocation by Market Size 

Market Size

Matched-Pair Test Type

Total

Very Large 

Large 

Medium 

(2,500,000 or More)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

Total matched-pair tests

MI

110

142

105

357

I/DD

92

121

98

311

Total

202

263

203

668

Matched-pair tests with reasonable accommodation requests

MI

106

128

105

339

I/DD

88

108

94

290

Total

194

236

199

629

Matched-pair tests without reasonable accommodation requests

MI

4

15

0

19

I/DD

4

12

4

20

Total

8

27

4

39

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

25

shown that housing providers can respond in various favorable 

•  If testers were given the same information on rents, 

or unfavorable manners to an applicant. In this study, the 

security deposits, application fees, or other fees.

following indicators of favorable or unfavorable responses that 

•  If testers were given the same information on specials or 

testers could receive included—

incentives to rent.

•  Whether testers received a response to their inquiry, for 

•  If testers were given the same information on amenities 

the first level of unfavorable treatment testing (e-mail 

and services available.

testing mode).

•  Whether testers were encouraged to look at a different unit 

•  If testers were told the advertised unit or similar unit in 

owned by the same landlord (that is, “This unit actually isn’t 

the same building or development was available.

available, but I have another unit in the same building you 

•  How many available units testers were told about.

might be interested in”).

•  If testers were invited to inspect the unit.

•

Whether testers were referred to a different complex altogether.

•  If testers were advised to call the housing provider (e-mail 

•  Whether the housing provider was willing to grant a 

only).

reasonable accommodation (only when applicable).

•  Whether testers were asked to provide additional informa-

Table 19 summarizes a treatment indicator matrix, showing the 

tion regarding their qualifications as an applicant (that is, 

behavior observed in the testing that was assessed to determine 

their credit score/income/employment).

how the outcomes data from all tests were analyzed by testing 

•  Whether testers were reminded about qualifications they 

mode—e-mail, telephone, and in person. Although some indi-

must possess to rent the unit.

cators are shared by all three modes, each also has indicators 

unique to that mode. The data were broken out into four categories: 

•  Whether the unit was available and, if not, whether testers 

(1) contact with housing providers, (2) availability, (3) tester 

were given a reason for the unit not being available.

engagement, and (4) reasonable accommodation, each of which 

are described in detail in Table 19.

Table 19. Differential Treatment Indicator Matrix (1 of 2) 

Outcome 

Outcome 

Test Modality

Category

Subcategory

E-mail

Telephone

In Person

Contact with 

Initial contact

Housing provider/agent 

Able to speak to housing 

Able to meet with housing provider/agent

housing provider

responded

provider/agent

Number of responses

Meeting with housing provider/agent in group 

or as individual

Housing provider/agent 

Housing provider/agent 

Housing provider/agent requests contact 

requests contact information

requests contact information

information

Timing

Amount of time between 

Amount of time between arrival and first 

housing inquiry and first 

greeting by housing provider/agent/staff

response

Amount of time between arrival and meeting 

with housing provider/agent

Duration of in-person test

Availability of 

Original unit(s)

Advertised unit(s) available

Advertised unit(s) available

Advertised unit(s) available

housing unit

Unit(s) within “desired housing request” 

available

Number of units

Number of units

Number of units within “desired housing 

request” 

Other units

Additional available unit(s)

Additional available unit(s)

Unit(s) outside “desired housing request” 

available

Number of units?

Number of units?

Number of units outside “desired housing 

request” 

Total units

Total number of available 

Total number of available 

Total number of available units

units

units

Waiting list

Offered to be placed on 

Offered to be placed on 

Offered to be placed on waiting list

waiting list

waiting list

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

26

Table 19.  Differential Treatment Indicator Matrix (2 of 2)

Outcome 

Outcome 

Test Modality

Category

Subcategory

E-mail

Telephone

In Person

Tester 

Unit selection 

Method(s) for selection of unit(s) to view

engagement

method

Agent or tester selects unit(s) to view

Details of 

Address

Address

Address

discussed unit(s) Apt. number

Apt. number

Apt. number

Type

Type

Type

Number of bedrooms

Number of bedrooms

Number of bedrooms

Rent

Rent

Rent

Security deposit

Security deposit

Security deposit

Date of availability

Date of availability

Date of availability

Fees

Fees

Fees

Apartment shown

Apartment condition ready for move in 

(assessed only for vacant units)

Total number of shown apartments that meet 

tester needs

Information 

Application mentioned

Application mentioned

Application mentioned

disclosed by 

agent/housing 

Application offered

Application offered

Application offered

provider

Duration of application 

Duration of application 

Duration of application process

process

process

Co-signer mentioned?

Co-signer mentioned?

Co-signer mentioned?

Security deposit?

Security deposit?

Security deposit?

Other fees

Other fees

Other fees

Amenities

Amenities

Amenities

Incentives

Incentives

Incentives

Encouraging/discouraging 

Encouraging/discouraging 

Encouraging/discouraging remarks

remarks

remarks

Disability comments

Disability comments

Disability comments

Referred to alternative 

Referred to alternative 

Referred to alternative residence type

residence type

residence type

Comments/questions 

Comments/questions 

Comments/questions on race, color, national 

on race, color, national 

on race, color, national 

origin, religion, sex, disability, children, age, 

origin, religion, sex, disability,  origin, religion, sex, disability,  marital status, source of income, or sexual children, age, marital status,  children, age, marital status,  orientation source of income, or sexual 

source of income, or sexual 

orientation

orientation

Future contact

Future contact

Future contact

Unit location comments

Unit location comments

Unit location comments

Other 

Escorted to apts

qualifications

Proof of citizenship prior to showing

Require personal ID

Require personal ID

Require personal ID

Housing provider/agent 

Housing provider/agent 

Housing provider/agent indicated applicant is 

indicated applicant is “not 

indicated applicant is “not 

“not qualified”

qualified”

qualified”

References

References

References

Credit check (as part of 

Credit check (as part of 

Credit check (as part of application)

application)

application)

Criminal background check

Criminal background check

Criminal background check

Reasonable 

Housing provider/agent 

Housing provider/agent 

accommodation

responded to request?

responded to request?

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

27

Data Analysis

Discrimination is assumed when the proportion of tests that 

favors control testers is greater than the proportion that favors 

Analysis of the responses of housing providers observed during 

protected testers. The difference in the percentages between 

the testing followed the approach used in the 2000 Housing 

outcomes 3 and 4 represents the net difference in outcomes. 

Discrimination Study (HUD, 2002) and DDS 2005 studies, 

The value of the net difference is what is assessed in the 

which assessed the extent to which one tester is consistently 

hypothesis test. The hypothesis is declared formally in the 

favored over the other in the treatment received from housing 

following equations.

providers based on their inquiries. For example, tests are clas-

sified as “control tester favored” if the control tester received 

H : % = %  or % – %  = 0.

0

3 

4

3 

4

favorable treatment on at least one indicator of interest and the 

H : % > % or % – %  > 0.

protected tester received no favorable treatment on the same 

A

3 

4 

3 

4

indicator(s).Tests are conversely classified as “protected tester 

favored” if the protected tester received favorable treatment on 

Measuring Discrimination

at least one indicator of interest and the control tester received 

In this study, discrimination was estimated separately by test 

no favorable treatment on the same indicator(s).

mode (e-mail, telephone, and in person) for each disability 

Typical treatment indicators that have been tracked in past 

group. The measure of discrimination is expressed as—

housing discrimination studies, including HUD (2013a), a 

D =  p  –  p .

paired e-mail testing study, include whether each tester (1) 

10

01

received a response, (2) in a pair received a response, (3) was 

In this expression,  p   is the proportion of pairs in which 

10

told the unit was available, (4) was told to contact the provid-

the control applicant receives a favorable outcome and the 

er, and (5) was invited to inspect the unit. In addition to track-

applicant with disabilities receives an unfavorable outcome, 

ing these five indicators, this study explored other indicators 

and  p  is the proportion of pairs in which the control applicant 01

related to quality of applicant, costs, and encouragement using 

receives a negative outcome and the applicant with disabilities 

a validated qualitative approach to analyze e-mail data (see 

receives a positive outcome. The standard error of  D is—

Appendix A, Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and 

n

p  – p

10 +  n 01

p  – 

10

10 +  n 01

01

SE (D) =

=

,

Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities 

SE (D) =

n

=

n

n

by Different Testing Modes).

p  – p

where 

SE (D) n  n

= is the total number of pairs. Given that 

10 +  n 01

10

01

=

D is approx-

n

n

imately normally distributed, we may compute confidence 

The testing conducted in this study estimates the incidence 

intervals using—

of discrimination by studying favorable and unfavorable out-

comes for each test dimension. A favorable outcome represents 

n

p  – p

10 +  n 01

p  – 

10

10 +  n 01

01

D ±  Z

,

c

=  D ±  Zc

Z

a response in which the tester received an affirmative value on 

n

n

n

p  – p

10 +  n 01

10

01

the test dimension, and an unfavorable outcome represents a 

where 

D ±  Z Z  is the appropriate critical value of the standard normal c

=  D ±  Z

c

n

c

n

response in which the tester received a negative value on the 

distribution.

2

test dimension. Each test had four possible combinations of 

2

(n

n

2

(n 10 – 

10

01 )

01

X =

The test statistic for McNemar’s Test is—

1

outcomes: (1) both the control and protected testers received 

n 10

n  + 

10

n 01

n  2

2

(n

favorable outcomes, (2) both testers received unfavorable 

10 –  n 01 )

X =

.

1

n 10 +  n 01

outcomes, (3) only the control tester received a favorable 

2

In this expression,  n  is the number of pairs in which the con-2

( | n  –  n | – 1 )

outcome, or (4) only the protected tester received a favorable 

2

( | n10 – 

10

n 01| – 1 10

X =

1

n

n

trol tester receives a favorable outcome and the protected tester 

outcome. The relationships among the four combinations are 

10 + 

10

01

2

2

( | n10 –  n 01| – 1 )

=

receives an unfavorable outcome, and  n  is the number of pairs summarized in Table 20.

X1

n

01

10 +  n 01

in which the control tester receives an unfavorable outcome and 

the protected tester receives a favorable outcome. Under the null 

Table 20. Possible Outcomes Matrix 

hypothesis of no discrimination, with a sufficiently large number 

Protected

Possible Outcomes

of discordant samples ( n  and  n ), the test statistic has an 10

01

Favorable

Unfavorable

asymptotic chi-squared distribution with one degree of freedom. 

Control

Favorable 

(1) Both 

(3) Control favored

If either  n  or  n  is small ( n

n < 25), then an exact  binomial 

Unfavorable (4) MI or I/DD favored (2) Both

10

01

10 +  01 

test can be used where  n  is compared to the binomial distribution I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

10

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

n

p  – p

SE (D) =

10 +  n 01

10

01

n

=

n

n

p  – p

10 +  n 01

10

01

D ±  Z

=  D ±  Z

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINA

c

n

c

TION ON THE BASIS OF MENT

n

AL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

28

2

with size parameter 

2

(n 10 –  n 01 )

=

n = n  +  n  and probability 0.5.

X

The test statistic has an asymptotic chi-squared distribution 

1

10

01

n

 The 

binomial exact 

10 +  n 01  p-value can be approximated with the following with one degree of freedom. In this study, a one-tailed version 

continuity-corrected version of McNemar’s Test.

of this test was done by dividing the two-tailed  p-value from the 2

chi-squared or exact binomial test by 2. The estimates of inci-

2

( | n10 –  n 01| – 1 )

X =

.

1

n

dences of discrimination are provided at 99-, 95-, and 90-percent 

10 +  n 01

levels of significance by protected subclass (MI or I/DD).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

29

Findings of Incidence of Discrimination

This section presents the data generated by the three testing 

•  Was the unit available and, if not, were both testers 

modes (e-mail, telephone, and in person) and summarizes 

given a reason for the unit not being available (favor-

findings from the tests using the dimensions described in the 

able)?

previous section to determine the incidence of discrimination 

•  Were both testers advised to call the housing provider 

identified in each mode.

(favorable)?

Data Reliability and Limitations

•  Were protected testers asked to provide additional 

information regarding their qualifications as an appli-

Each mode of testing is examined by different dimensions of 

cant (not favorable)?

discrimination. In cases for which the matched-pair sample 

•  Were protected testers reminded about qualifications 

size was sufficient, data were further cross-tabulated by (1) 

they must possess to rent the unit (not favorable)?

market size, (2)  Olmstead status (that is, whether the pair was in a state with an  Olmstead Plan or  Olmstead-related litigation), 

•  Were protected testers encouraged to look at a differ-

(3) type of disability (MI or I/DD), (4) gender, and (5) race.33

ent unit owned by the same landlord instead of the 

unit advertised (not favorable)?

E-mail Testing Findings

The first step in the statistical analysis was to determine whether 

testers from the control group were more likely to receive a 

The analysis of the e-mail tests focused on the differences in 

response to the initial inquiry than their matched protected 

the responses of housing providers to people with MD (MI and 

testers. Figure 2 summarizes the number and distribution of 

I/DD samples combined = protected class) compared with peo-

e-mail responses versus nonresponses to the initial rental inqui-

ple without disabilities (control) across the following indicators 

ries from testers both with and without MD. Of the 359 tests 

on two different levels.

administered, only 91 tests (25 percent) resulted in responses 

1.  Level 1 (applicable to administered tests in which both 

to both testers in the pair, and, in 172 tests (48 percent), neither testers sent an e-mail in inquiry; n = 359).

tester received a response. Thus, in 73 percent of the e-mail 

tests, the control and protected group received equal treatment.

•  Did each tester receive a response to his or her 

inquiry (favorable)?

Table 21 presents the results of this first level of analysis. As 

shown, people with MD (MI and I/DD combined) were signifi-

2.  Level 2 (applicable only to completed tests in which both 

cantly less likely to receive any response back to their rental 

testers received a response; n = 91).

inquiry via e-mail (17.55 percent of tests favored the control 

•  Were both testers told the advertised unit is available 

class compared with 9.19 percent that favored the protected 

(favorable)?

class). The difference in these two percentages captures the  net measure of preferential treatment given to the control testers 

•

Were both testers invited to inspect the unit (favorable)?

Table 21. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing Both 

Neither 

Control  Protected 

Sample 

Test Dimension

Testers 

Tester 

Tester 

Tester 

Net 

Size 

(%)

(%)

Only 

Only 

Measure

p-Value

(%)

(%)

(n)

Which tester(s) received a response to their e-mail?

25.35

47.91

17.55

9.19

8.36***

0.0011

359

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

*** Significant at the .01 level.

33 Throughout the Findings of Incidence of Discrimination section, in the event the sample size or matched-pair data available were not sufficient to yield conclusive statistical results, this limitation is documented and indicates the need for additional testing with larger sample sizes in the future.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

30

(8.36 percent).34 This positive net measure (8.36 percent) 

Figure 3. Response Rates of E-mail Paired Tests for 

suggests that people with MD (MI and I/DD combined) were 

Protected Testers Identifying as a Person With MI

significantly less likely to receive a response back to their rental inquiry and that a greater percentage of people in the control 

group were favored. Moreover, the resulting  p-value indicates Total MI tests conducted

that the difference in treatment between control and protected 

n = 183

classes is significant.

A second level of analysis considers several dimensions of the 

response to the different testers, and thus only those tests in 

Some response from provider

No response from provider

n = 90

n = 93

which both testers within a pair received a response (n = 91, 

or 25 percent of the administered tests) can be included in the 

analysis. Table 22 demonstrates that of the 91 tests in which 

both the control tester and the paired protected tester received 

Control 

Protected 

tester 

tester 

a reply, protected testers identifying as having MD were less 

received a 

received a 

likely to be forwarded to a housing provider to make an ap-

response 

response 

n = 79

n = 53

pointment or to see the unit (7.69 percent favored the control 

class compared with 0.00 percent that favored the protected class).

Only control 

Both

Only 

protected 

As described in the Sampling Methods section, the protected 

tester 

tester 

tester 

received a 

received a 

tester identified himself or herself as an individual with either 

received a 

response 

response 

response 

MI or I/DD. Figure 3 represents the response rates of the 183 

n = 37

n = 42

n = 11

paired e-mail tests that were conducted by protected testers 

MI = mental illness.

identifying as a person with MI.

Table 23 documents the results of the first level analysis to 

Thus, in 74 percent of the e-mail tests for which the tester 

determine whether testers from the control group were more 

revealed MI, the control and protected groups received similar 

likely to receive a response to the initial inquiry than their 

treatment. If the responses were different within test pairs, 

matched protected tester. Of the 183 paired tests completed in 

however, control testers were favored at a rate of 20.22 percent 

which the protected testers revealed that they were people with 

compared with only 6.01 percent for the protected testers. The 

MI (as opposed to I/DD), only 42 (22.95 percent) of the tests 

resulting net measure of 14.21 percent and  p-value of 0.0001 

resulted in responses to both testers in the pair, and 93 (50.82 

demonstrate that these differences are statistically significant.

percent) of the tests resulted in no response to either tester. 

Table 22. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing Both 

Neither 

Control  Protected 

Sample 

Test Dimension

Testers 

Tester 

Tester 

Tester 

Net 

Size 

 (%)

(%)

Only 

Only 

Measure

p-Value

(%)

(%)

(n)

Unit available

28.57

56.04

8.79

6.59

2.20

0.3953

91

Invited to inspect

72.94

11.76

7.06

8.24

– 1.18

0.5000

85a

Given reason for unit not available

28.57

53.85

8.79

8.79

0.00

0.5000

91

Contact housing provider

41.76

50.55

7.69

0.00

7.69***

0.0078

91

Asked for additional qualification information

96.70

2.20

1.10

0.00

1.10

0.5000

91

Reminded about qualifications to rent

95.60

3.30

1.10

0.00

1.10

0.5000

91

Encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

6.59

93.41

0.00

0.00

0.00

NA

91

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness. NA = test statistics cannot be produced due to no observations in both discordant pairs.

*** Significant at the .01 level.

a The sample size of 85 is due to the lack of response data for one of the pairs involved for this particular test dimension. The set of pairs without comparable responses cannot be used in the analysis.

34 A positive net difference (control – protected net difference) means a greater percentage of people in the control class were favored, whereas a negative net difference would have meant a greater percentage of people in the protected class were favored. The p-value shows whether differences noted were significant and, if so, at what level.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

31

Table 23. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing Both 

Neither 

Control  Protected  

Sample 

Test Dimension

Testers 

Tester 

Tester  (MI) Tester 

Net 

Size 

(%)

(%)

Only 

Only 

Measure

p-Value

(%)

(%)

(n)

Which tester(s) received a response to their e-mail?

22.95

50.82

20.22

6.01

14.21***

0.0001

183

MI = mental illness.

*** Significant at the .01 level.

Because only 42 completed tests received responses from the 

significance for men (significant at the .001 level for men 

housing provider to both the control and the protected (MI) 

compared with the .017 level for women). To the contrary, 

testers, subsequent indicators of favorable or unfavorable treat-

treatment differences based on gender were not found for 

ment could be analyzed using only these 42 tests. The results 

testers identifying as having an I/DD.

summarized in Table 24 of the second level analysis show that 

•  Current living situation (whether the person was living 

people with MI, when compared with the control tester, were 

in a community or institutional setting before the 

less likely to be referred to the housing provider to actually see 

rental request)—Overall, protected testers with MD were 

the unit or to make an appointment to do so.

less likely to receive a reply to their e-mail inquiries than 

When these same analyses were conducted on the set of com-

were control testers. Between the two different scenarios 

pleted tests in which protected testers identified themselves as 

presented by the protected testers—either moving from 

people with I/DD rather than people with MI, no significant 

an institutional setting ( Olmstead) or moving from a family 

differences were observed between the treatment of the 

home or other community setting (non- Olmstead)—protected 

protected and control testers. This finding suggests potentially 

testers who indicated they were moving from an institutional 

different treatment of people by diagnosis or type of MD.

setting were even less likely to receive a response to their 

request (significant at the .004 level for  Olmstead versus the Differences in treatment were also noted based on other 

.090 level for non- Olmstead).

factors. Despite small sample sizes, notable trends were shown 

in the following areas.

Reasonable Accommodation Requests 

•  Size of market—In the very large markets, people with 

via E-mail

MD were less likely to receive a reply to their inquiries 

and less likely to be forwarded to a housing provider to set 

Within the total pool of 359 attempted e-mail tests, 78 paired 

up an appointment to see the advertised unit than in other 

tests included a specific request from the protected tester for a 

size markets. This lower level of response in Chicago and 

reasonable accommodation (the control tester in the pair did 

Washington, D.C., was noted particularly with respect to 

not make a reasonable accommodation request). These rea-

people with MI.

sonable accommodation requests, such as use of an assistance 

•  Gender—Both men and women with MI were less likely 

animal or the need for verbal reminders to pay rent at a certain 

to receive a reply to their inquiries relative to paired 

time, were designed to relate directly to people with MD. Of 

control testers, but unfavorable findings were higher in 

the 78 housing providers who received e-mail inquiries that 

Table 24. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing Both 

Neither 

Control  Protected 

Sample 

Test Dimension

Testers 

Tester 

Tester 

(MI) Tester 

Net 

Size 

 (%)

(%)

Only 

Only 

Measure

p-Value

(%)

(%)

(n)

Unit available

21.43

61.90

9.52

7.14

2.38

0.5000

42

Invited to inspect

70.00

5.00

12.50

12.50

0.00

0.5000

40

Given reason for unit not available

21.43

59.52

9.52

9.52

0.00

0.5000

42

Contact housing provider

45.24

45.24

9.52

0.00

9.52*

0.0625

42

Asked for additional qualification information

100.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

NA

42

Reminded about qualifications to rent

95.24

4.76

0.00

0.00

0.00

NA

42

Encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

4.76

95.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

NA

42

MI = mental illness. NA = test statistics cannot be produced due to no observations in both discordant pairs.

* Significant at the .10 level.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

32

included a reasonable accommodation request, only 39 (50 

Additional qualitative analyses of e-mail replies to accommoda-

percent) sent e-mail responses back to the protected testers. Of 

tion requests are provided in Appendix A, Qualitative Analyses 

those housing providers who did respond, roughly 15 percent 

and Findings on Overt and Subtle Discrimination Against 

were willing to grant the requested accommodation.

People With Mental Disabilities by Different Testing Modes.

Table 25 summarizes the results of the tests requesting a 

reasonable accommodation. Only 6 of the 39 housing pro-

Telephone Testing Findings

viders who responded (15.384 percent) responded favorably 

to the reasonable accommodation request.35 An additional 3 

This section summarizes findings from the telephone testing to 

housing providers (7.69 percent) responded to the request for 

measure discrimination against people with MD as they seek 

a reasonable accommodation but in an unfavorable manner, 

rental housing. Responses to tester inquiries were analyzed by 

either by stating that they were not willing to provide the 

assessing the following responses to testers.

requested accommodation or by giving a more ambiguous 

•  Were both testers told the advertised unit is available 

reply that left the impression that the request for a reasonable 

(favorable)?

accommodation was not likely to be approved. The remaining 

30 responding housing providers simply did not address the 

•  Were both testers invited to inspect the unit (favorable)?

request for a reasonable accommodation.  These housing pro-

•  Was the unit available and, if not, were both testers given a 

viders’ avoidance of addressing the reasonable accommodation 

reason for the unit not being available (favorable)?

request was considered to be unfavorable treatment.

•  Were protected testers asked to provide additional 

Table 25. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation 

information regarding their qualifications as an applicant 

Requests by Testers With MD Found in E-mail Testing 

(not favorable)?

Reasonable Accommodation Requests

Type of 

•  Were protected testers reminded about qualifications they 

Disability

Response 

Willing To 

Willing To 

must possess to rent the unit (not favorable)?

Received

Provide (n)

Provide (%)

MI

21

3

14.29

•  Were protected testers encouraged to look at a different 

I/DD

18

3

16.67

unit owned by the same landlord than the unit advertised 

Total

39

6

15.384

(not favorable)?

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. 

MI = mental illness.

Analyses focus on differences in treatment between people with 

MD (MI and I/DD) and control testers without disabilities. As 

Overall, the vast majority of people with MD making an e-mail 

shown in Table 26, no significant difference was identified with 

request for a reasonable accommodation (84.6 percent) were 

respect to whether potential renters with or without MD are told 

denied their request outright or were left, on their own, to 

whether an advertised unit is available, although the trend sug-

determine how to pursue their request or to appeal a housing 

gests that people with MD are less likely to be told an advertised 

provider’s denial.

Table 26. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD Found in Telephone Testing Control 

Protected 

Test Dimension

Tester Only 

Tester Only 

Net 

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size 

(n)

Unit available

6.59

4.94

1.65

0.1050

668

Invited to inspect

21.26

16.47

4.79**

0.0219

668

Given reason for unit not available

5.39

5.39

0.00

0.5000

668

NOT asked for additional qualification information

19.71

20.99

– 1.28

0.33085

629

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

16.18

24.76

– 8.58

0.0004a

618

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

7.78

4.79

2.99**

0.0188

668

MD = mental disability.

** Significant at the .05 level.

a The null hypothesis is not rejected as test statistics indicate significance in the other direction.

35 The testing demonstrated slightly higher levels of willingness to provide accommodations for people with I/DD (16.7 percent) versus people with MI (14.3 percent).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

33

unit is available than people without disabilities ( p = .105). 

•  Significantly  less likely to be invited to inspect an advertised People with MD (both I/DD and MI), however, were treated 

unit and significantly  more likely to be forwarded to a 

significantly less favorably in two ways.

different unit than the one advertised, even when the 

advertised unit was said to be available.36 

1.  Protected testers were  less likely to be invited to inspect an advertised unit.

•  Significantly  more likely to be asked to provide additional information about their qualifications.

2.  Protected testers were  more likely to be steered to a 

different unit than the one advertised, even when the 

•  Significantly  more likely to be sent ambiguous signs of 

advertised unit was available.

rentals not being available.37

Additional instances of significant differences in treatment 

Analysis of the tests conducted for people with I/DD (n = 311), 

were found during telephone testing when the tests were ana-

revealed a significant unfavorable difference in that people with 

lyzed based on the type of disability revealed by the protected 

I/DD were  more likely to be forwarded to a different unit than tester. As shown in Table 27, when specifically looking at the 

the one advertised, even when the advertised unit was said to 

sample of testers with MI (n = 357), testers with MI were—

be available (Table 28). This finding suggests that people with 

I/DD are being steered toward a specific building, wing, or area 

•  Significantly  less likely to be told an advertised unit was within a property.

available than the control tester.

Table 27. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in Telephone Testing Control 

Protected (MI) 

Test Dimension

Tester Only 

Tester Only 

Net 

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size 

(n)

Unit available

7.56

4.48

3.08**

0.0467

357

Invited to inspect 

19.61

14.01

5.60**

0.0339

357

Given reason for unit not available

5.60

5.04

0.56

0.3728

357

NOT asked for additional qualification information

22.87

17.68

5.19*

0.0702

328

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

15.63

25.00

– 9.37

0.0043a

320

Sent ambiguous sign of availability

7.56

5.04

2.52*

0.0899

357

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

7.28

4.20

3.08**

0.0429

357

MI = mental illness.

* Significant at the .10 level. ** Significant at the .05 level.

a The null hypothesis is not rejected as test statistics indicate significance in the other direction.

Table 28. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in Telephone Testing Control 

Protected (I/DD) 

Test Dimension

Tester Only 

Tester Only 

Net 

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size 

(n)

Unit available

5.47

5.47

0.00

0.5000

311

Invited to inspect 

23.15

19.29

3.86

0.1481

311

Given reason for unit not available

5.14

5.79

– 0.65

0.3658

311

NOT asked for additional qualification information

16.28

24.58

– 8.30

0.0121

301

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

16.78

24.50

– 7.72

0.0190

298

Sent ambiguous sign of availability

5.47

5.47

0.00

0.5000

311

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

8.36

5.47

2.89*

0.0850

311

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability.

* Significant at the .10 level.

36 This finding suggests that people with MI are being steered toward a different building or a specific wing or area within a building. 

37 See Appendix A: Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities by Different Testing Modes, for examples of this subtle discrimination.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

34

Telephone testing revealed that people with MI and I/DD 

Reasonable Accommodation Requests 

were  less likely to be reminded about qualifications or asked to via Telephone

provide additional information about their qualifications than 

people without disabilities.38 Further testing and qualitative 

During telephone testing, if protected testers were invited to see 

debriefing of housing providers would be needed to determine 

a unit, a request for a reasonable accommodation was made. A 

whether this indicator is favorable or unfavorable.

total of 629 telephone tests included a request for a reasonable 

accommodation from the protected tester. Table 29 summarizes 

The following differences by size of market, gender, and previous 

the results of the responses to these requests.

living status were also observed as trends in telephone testing.

•  Size of market—People with both MI and I/DD were 

Table 29. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation 

treated less favorably in large- and medium-sized markets, 

Requests by Testers With MD Found in Telephone 

as compared with very large markets, in several areas, 

Testing 

including (1) they were less likely to be told an advertised 

Reasonable Accommodation Requests

Type of 

unit is available, (2) they were less likely to be invited to 

Disability

Response 

Willing To 

Willing To 

inspect that unit, and (3) they were encouraged more to 

Received

Provide (n)

Provide (%)

look at a different unit than the one advertised.

MI

339

187

55.16

I/DD

290

185

63.79

•  Gender—By contrast with e-mail findings, in telephone 

Total

629

372

59.14

testing, women with MI were (1) less likely to be invited in 

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. 

MI = mental illness.

to view the unit (22.70 percent of tests favored control-group 

women compared with 6.38 percent that favored women 

By contrast with findings from the e-mail tests (in which only 

with MI;  p = .0002), (2) less likely to be asked to provide 

15.384 percent of housing providers expressed willingness 

additional information regarding their qualifications as an 

to provide a reasonable accommodation when asked), 59.14 

applicant (32.14 percent favored control-group women 

percent of the housing providers who were asked to provide 

compared with 11.43 percent that favored women with 

reasonable accommodations during telephone testing stated 

MI;  p = .0001), and (3) more likely to be encouraged 

that they would be willing to make the accommodation or 

to look at a different unit owned by the same landlord 

would view the request favorably given disclosure of the 

(14.18 percent favored control-group women compared 

disability. This finding may indicate that housing providers 

with 7.09 percent that favored in women with MI;  p = .034).

are more likely to engage in a conversation and openly discuss 

Men with MI were less likely to be asked about qualifica-

accommodations on the telephone than in an e-mail. Telephone 

tions or any additional information than women with MI. 

testing still showed a significant percentage of accommodation 

Significant gender differences were not found for people 

requests that were not accepted (40.86 percent), however. The 

with I/DD.

remaining housing providers either stated outright that they 

were not willing to provide the accommodation or gave more 

•  Current living situation—Protected testers who indicat-

ambiguous replies that more subtly pointed toward a negative 

ed to the housing provider that they had been living in an 

decision.39 Thus, a large percentage of people with MD (40.86 

institutional setting before renting ( Olmstead) were (1) less percent) were denied their request for a reasonable accommo-likely to receive a reply to their inquiries, (2) less likely 

dation or left to figure out how to pursue that request on their 

to be invited to inspect a unit, and (3) more encouraged 

own given negative input in response to their request.

to look at a different unit than the one advertised, when 

compared with the protected testers who reported to 

In addition, reasonable accommodation response rates differed 

providers that they were living in a family home or 

by type of disability (see Table 29), revealing that a higher 

community-based settings before renting (non- Olmstead).

percentage of housing providers were willing to provide 

38 This finding may suggest a favorable finding that housing providers know not to ask these types of questions, or it may suggest unfavorable treatment in that housing providers may be less likely to ask for any detailed rental information from applicants with MI and I/DD after having already shown less chance of inviting them to see or inspect a unit. 

39 For example, many housing providers or their agents stated that they did not think the owner would allow the requested accommodation or that it was unlikely the request would be considered, and they said that the applicant would need to find and call a representative at the housing provider to verify this information but did not give any contact information to do so.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

35

accommodations to people with I/DD (63.79 percent) than 

different- sized markets tested. Given small sample sizes tested, 

to people with MI (55.16 percent). Requests for a reasonable 

particularly in smaller city markets, results are limited to show-

accommodation were also more likely to be considered and 

ing only potential trends. This limit demonstrates the need for 

granted in large markets (65.7 percent) and medium markets 

larger-scale testing to determine significant differences between 

(66.7 percent) than in very large markets (47.4 percent) or 

metropolitan statistical areas based on market size.

small markets (41.9 percent). This analysis again produced 

Additional qualitative analyses of telephone responses to 

a higher acceptance rate for people with I/DD than with MI, 

requests for reasonable accommodations are provided in 

regardless of market size.

Appendix A, Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and 

Table 30 summarizes the varying levels of affirmative 

Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities 

responses to requests for reasonable accommodations within 

by Different Testing Modes.

Table 30. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Request Responses by Specific Markets Counts

99% C.I.

95% C.I.

90% C.I.

Type of 

Willing To  

Disability

Accommodate 

Total 

Willing To 

Lower 

Upper 

Lower 

Upper 

Lower 

Upper 

(%)

Requested Accommodate

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

MI

55

18

32.7

16.4

49.0

20.3

45.1

22.3

43.1

I/DD

46

21

45.7

26.7

64.6

31.3

60.0

33.6

57.7

MI+ I/DD

101

39

38.6

26.1

51.1

29.1

48.1

30.6

46.6

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

MI

51

24

47.1

29.1

65.1

33.4

60.8

35.6

58.6

I/DD

42

29

69.0

50.7

87.4

55.1

83.0

57.3

80.8

MI+ I/DD

93

53

57.0

43.8

70.2

46.9

67.1

48.5

65.4

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN

MI

53

35

66.0

49.3

82.8

53.3

78.8

55.3

76.7

I/DD

53

37

69.8

53.6

86.1

57.5

82.2

59.4

80.2

MI+ I/DD

106

72

67.9

56.2

79.6

59.0

76.8

60.5

75.4

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

MI

75

48

64.0

49.7

78.3

53.1

74.9

54.9

73.1

I/DD

55

35

63.6

46.9

80.3

50.9

76.3

53.0

74.3

MI+ I/DD

130

83

63.8

53.0

74.7

55.6

72.1

56.9

70.8

Albuquerque, NM

MI

26

19

73.1

50.7

95.5

56.0

90.1

58.8

87.4

I/DD

23

18

78.3

56.1

100.0

61.4

95.1

64.1

92.4

MI+ I/DD

49

37

75.5

59.7

91.3

63.5

87.6

65.4

85.6

Fresno, CA

MI

27

17

63.0

39.0

86.9

44.7

81.2

47.7

78.2

I/DD

24

21

87.5

61.3

98.5

67.6

97.3

70.8

96.5

MI+ I/DD

51

38

74.5

58.8

90.2

62.5

86.5

64.5

84.5

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA

MI

28

14

50.0

25.7

74.3

31.5

68.5

34.5

65.5

I/DD

25

14

56.0

30.4

81.6

36.5

75.5

39.7

72.3

MI+ I/DD

53

28

52.8

35.2

70.5

39.4

66.3

41.6

64.1

New Haven-Milford, CT

MI

10

6

60.0

19.1

92.3

26.2

87.8

30.4

85.0

I/DD

5

3

60.0

8.3

97.7

14.7

94.7

18.9

92.4

MI+ I/DD

15

9

60.0

27.4

92.6

35.2

84.8

39.2

80.8

Syracuse, NYa

MI

17

7

41.2

10.4

71.9

17.8

64.6

21.5

60.8

I/DD

14

6

42.9

8.8

76.9

16.9

68.8

21.1

64.6

MI+ I/DD

31

13

41.9

19.1

64.8

24.6

59.3

27.4

56.5

C.I. = confidence interval. I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

a Added after a potential detection issue was discovered in New Haven-Milford, CT.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

36

In-Person Testing Findings

the control tester compared with 0.00 percent favoring the 

protected tester). No other significant differences in treatment 

This section summarizes findings from in-person testing to 

were identified during the in-person testing.

measure discrimination against people with and without MD 

as they seek rental housing. Key questions that form the basis 

The sample size varies if data were missing or not available for 

for analysis include—

one of the matched pairs; only balanced matched-pair data 

were analyzed.

•  Were both testers told the advertised unit is available 

(favorable)?

As in the other modes of testing, when additional characteristics 

of testers were considered in the analysis, evidence of differ-

•  Was the unit available and, if not, were both testers given 

ential treatment based on disability type, current living status, 

a reason for the unit not being available (favorable)?

region, and gender were observed.

•  Were protected testers asked to provide additional 

As shown in Table 32, people with MI were less likely to be 

information regarding their qualifications as an applicant 

told that an advertised unit is available (8 percent of tests 

(not favorable)?

favored the control group compared with 0 percent that favored 

•  Were protected testers reminded about qualifications they 

the MI group) during in-person testing.

must possess to rent the unit (not favorable)?

No significant differences in treatment were found between tes-

•  Were protected testers encouraged to look at a different 

ters with I/DD and control testers without MD (see Table 33).

unit owned by the same landlord than the unit advertised 

The following additional differences by gender, race, and living 

(not favorable)?

situation were also found to be significant in in-person testing.

The first analysis focuses on differences between testers with 

•  Gender—Women with MI were less likely to be told 

MD (MI and I/DD samples combined) and testers without 

an advertised unit was available (11.43 percent of tests 

disabilities. As shown in Table 31, people with MD were sig-

favored women without disabilities compared with 0 

nificantly less likely than people without disabilities to be told 

percent that favored women with MI;  p = .06) and more 

that the advertised unit was available (5.94 percent favoring 

likely to be encouraged to look at a different unit than 

the control tester compared with 0.99 percent favoring the 

the one available (20 percent favored women without 

protected tester) and were less likely to be given a valid reason 

disabilities compared with 5.71 percent that favored in 

for why the unit was not available (3.96 percent favoring 

women with MI;  p = .09) during the in-person testing. 

Table 31. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD Found in In-Person Testing Control 

Protected 

Test Dimension

Tester Only 

Tester Only 

Net 

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size 

(n)

Unit available

5.94

0.99

4.95*

0.0625

101

Given reason for unit not available

3.96

0.00

3.96*

0.0625

101

NOT asked for additional qualification information

16.49

21.65

– 5.16

0.2055

97

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

18.75

19.79

– 1.04

0.4347

96

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

12.87

12.87

0.00

0.5000

101

MD = mental disability.

* Significant at the .10 level.

Table 32. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in In-Person Testing Control 

Protected (MI) 

Test Dimension

Tester Only 

Tester Only 

Net 

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size 

(n)

Unit available

8.00

0.00

8.00*

0.0625*

50

Given reason for unit not available

4.00

0.00

4.00

0.2500

50

NOT asked for additional qualification information

17.02

25.53

– 8.51

0.2517

47

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

18.75

20.83

– 2.08

0.5000

48

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

16.00

6.00

10.00

0.1133

50

MI = mental illness.

* Significant at the .10 level.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

37

Table 33. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in In-Person Testing

% Tester Favored

Test Dimension

Control 

Protected (MI) 

Tester Only 

Tester Only 

Net 

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size 

(n)

Unit available

3.92

1.96

1.96

0.5000

51

Given reason for unit not available

3.92

0.00

3.92

NA

51

NOT asked for additional qualification information

16.00

18.00

– 2.00

0.5000

50

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

18.75

18.75

0.00

0.5000

48

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

9.80

19.61

– 9.81

0.1509

51

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. NA = test statistics cannot be produced due to no observations in control, protected, or both groups.

Such observations were not made for men (for additional 

unit (23.33 percent favored people without disabilities 

qualitative analyses of the content of these responses, see 

compared with 6.67 percent that favored people with MI 

appendix A).

living in nursing homes;  p = .09). No significant findings 

were observed in test results for applicants with I/DD who 

•  Race—Although sample sizes and matched-pair data were 

identified as living in large group homes versus with family 

too small to be conclusive to analyze most differences, 

before renting.

African-Americans with MI were less likely to be told 

an advertised unit was available (9.76 percent favored 

In addition to the analysis of these quantitative findings, all 

African-Americans without disabilities compared with 

qualitative field notes and examples from in-person testing 

0.00 percent that favored African-Americans with MI;  

were analyzed for additional overt and subtle indications of 

p = .06) than African-American control testers.

discrimination. An innovative mixed-methods approach was 

used for analyzing these qualitative data, which yielded rich 

•  Current living situation—Testers with MI who identified 

descriptive findings on additional areas of potential discrimina-

as living in a nursing home or institution before renting 

tion that were not measured in the quantitative analyses. These 

( Olmstead group) were less likely to be told an advertised 

qualitative methods and findings are summarized separately in 

unit was available (13.33 percent favored people without 

appendix A, Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and 

disabilities compared with 0.00 percent that favored peo-

Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities 

ple with MI living in nursing homes;  p = .06) and trending 

by Different Testing Modes.

toward more likely to be encouraged to look at a different 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

38

Findings From the Evaluation of Different Testing Modes

Two primary objectives of this study were to (1) develop 

period of time with the need to contain costs. This balance 

and implement different testing methods and approaches for 

imposed practical limitations on methodologies, but it also 

measuring housing discrimination on the basis of MD and 

supported the consideration of different approaches, both for 

(2) evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, 

the benefit of the testers with MD and for the efficient execution 

to establish a set of protocols for conducting paired testing 

of the study.

to measure the degree to which people with MD experience 

The final research design included pilot testing that employed 

discrimination in the search for rental housing. This section 

people with and without MD as testers. People with MD 

of the report evaluates the three testing methods implemented 

served exclusively as protected testers for the in-person testing, 

over the course of this research effort, focusing on the unique 

completing each test accompanied by a companion without 

aspects of implementing paired testing with, and on behalf of, 

MD, who was another trained tester posing as friend helping 

people with MD.

in the search process. This testing design was based on the 

DDS 2005 explored the development of methodologies to test 

recommendation of the expert panel, was confirmed by focus 

for housing discrimination on the basis of MD and served as 

groups that included people with MD as a reasonable strategy,40 

a starting point for developing the research approach for this 

and replicated the approach of the 2005 DDS.

study. The final report from DDS 2005 provided the study team 

The conclusion reached by the study team, as discussed 

with a set of considerations when employing people with MD 

subsequently, was that producing reliable fair housing test 

as testers and also provided some insights on how to reveal 

results while working with individuals with MD—both MI and 

disability and how to construct parallel stories for paired testing. 

I/DD—is feasible.

This information was supplemented with a review of current 

research on testing, insights from focus groups that included 

people with MD, and guidance from the study’s expert panel to 

Tester Profile: How Do You Isolate 

develop the testing protocols implemented in this project.

and Reveal Disability?

People With Disabilities As Testers: Is 

A key challenge to conducting matched-pair testing for housing 

discrimination on the basis of MD is ensuring that the tester 

It Feasible?

can convincingly and unambiguously reveal the presence of 

MD to a housing provider. Based on a review of the literature, 

HUD, the study team, the expert panel, and focus groups 

findings from focus groups, and discussions with the expert 

strongly supported the participation of people with MD 

panel, the following recommendations were made regarding (1) 

throughout the project, both as advisors and as testers. 

the severity of a tester’s disability, (2) the disclosure-and-reveal Although the recommendations of DDS 2005 indicated such 

sequence, and (3) the profile of the tester.

an approach was feasible for in-person testing, the report also 

noted the potential difficulty of recruiting a sufficient number 

of testers with MD and the concern that the effectiveness of the 

Severity of Disability

testers might decline if too many tests were conducted within 

After reviewing existing research on testing with this popula-

a given time period. With these concerns in mind, people with 

tion, and keeping in the spirit of the goals of the Fair Housing 

MD were engaged early in the planning process to help design 

Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study team 

the testing protocols and to participate in the testing process. 

determined not to restrict the type or severity of MD for testers, 

The study team sought to balance the equally important 

other than being confident that the person with MD was able 

practical need to produce credible results in a reasonably short 

to complete the assigned test. To make this determination, a 

40 Focus groups noted that people with MD who brought along another person for support when searching for housing reported feeling safer and more comfortable in the housing search process. Focus group respondents also noted that even when a companion was present, people with MD still experienced potential discrimination by landlords. The expert panel, which also included people with MD, agreed that this approach would likely yield good data by having two people to observe and record each test. The concern that the presence of a companion might affect or bias a test was discussed with the expert panel, and it was ultimately determined that the effect of a companion accompanying the protected tester would likely be minimal.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

39

verification process was used that was equivalent to seeking 

typical experience of many people with MD during the housing 

informed consent when enrolling a research subject. For 

search process, different strategies were developed across the 

this project, tester candidates were required to be their own 

three test modes to isolate the variable of interest in this project.

guardian and be capable of giving the equivalent of informed 

Because data are limited on testing for housing discrimination 

consent, recognizing that this restriction would likely reduce 

against people with MD, the study team turned to recent 

the pool of potential MI and I/DD testers. The research team 

research on discrimination during the search for employment 

then ensured that the candidate understood what was expected 

for additional guidance for its disclosure strategies. Revealing 

of him or her and could repeat the requirements back to 

disability41 during a job interview has parallels to the housing 

research team member. The ultimate goal was to ensure that 

search process; that is, some individuals may reveal the pres-

all testers were able to fully execute the test, including the 

ence of a disability right at the start of the housing search pro-

reporting requirements after the test, not only at the time of 

cess, and others may hide their disability and continue to do so 

recruitment but also on the day of each scheduled test. To 

after moving into a unit. The timing of disclosure of disability 

this end, the recruitment, interview, and training process was 

during matched-pair testing was studied by Dalgin and Bellini 

critical for successful testing involving people with MD.

(2008)using a tester profile that contained a 9-month gap in 

employment. In that study, the control testers with no disability 

Revealing Disability

offered that they were taking care of their mother who had a 

Several challenges were identified as being inherent in testing 

serious illness during that time. The testers with disabilities 

for housing discrimination on the basis of MD.

disclosed that they had been ill and needed to take some time 

off to deal with their own health concerns. Disclosure of the 

•  Unlike other housing discrimination research studies, 

specific nature of the health concern (that is, disability) then 

which have focused on externally recognizable character-

occurred later when voluntarily shared by the candidate either 

istics, such as race and ethnicity, most MD is not visible or 

in a short or long response (that is, more or less detail). This 

immediately recognizable (Corrigan and Penn, 1999) and 

study determined that extensive information on disability does 

therefore must be revealed during testing.

not change the outcome, because no difference was evident in 

•  Although many people with MD in the real world may 

response to the shorter version of disclosure. This approach 

be reluctant or unwilling to reveal their disability, for the 

assured that the employer knew the applicant had MD early in 

purpose of these tests, the MD must be clearly, credibly, 

the interview process and then later received some additional 

and consistently disclosed to the housing provider or agent.

information about that disability.

•  Many people with MD have multiple or co-occurring 

The DDS 2005 exploratory testing grappled with how the 

mental or physical disabilities; however, the testing design 

protected tester could reveal the presence of a disability to a 

can focus on only the single issue of the presence of MD.

housing provider. For this project, it was generally agreed that, 

although most people in this group would not typically disclose 

•  Although people with MD may disproportionately have 

their disability outright to a housing provider, it would be 

low incomes, profiles for both control and protected 

credible to do so if the each tester disclosed while explaining 

testers had to depict them as income qualified for the 

why they had no recent rental history. As a result, in all tests, 

units they were seeking in order to avoid introducing 

protected testers disclosed that their lack of rental history was 

another variable into the tests.

due to being in a mental health treatment facility (for people 

Recognizing that the necessarily narrow design of the testing 

with MI) or in a group home (for people with I/DD). Paired 

implemented for the purposes of this research effort does not 

control testers disclosed that they had either been a student 

represent the multiple and complex factors that affect the 

living in a dorm, had lived with family, or had lived abroad.

41 MacDonald-Wilson, et al. (2011:192) defined disclosure as “revealing information about one’s diagnostic label, mental health condition, or psychiatric disability” 

and identify seven different types or reasons for disclosure.

1.  Full disclosure—no one excluded from knowing.

2.  Selective disclosure—to people whom the person trusts.

3.  Strategically timed—after building trust over time; may or may not be full disclosure.

4.  Targeted—condition of employment. 

5.  Nondisclosure—hide it from all.

6.  Inadvertent—reveal instead of being “found out.”

7.  Forced—something came up that required it (e.g., hospitalization).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

40

Another approach to revealing disability in testing is with a 

Using the testing protocols described in previous sections, pro-

request for a reasonable accommodation. Common accommoda-

tected class testers were trained to reveal their disability in such tions requested can include assistance animals, variance of the 

a way that it was unambiguous and could not be discredited 

rent due date to accommodate the date of receipt of disability- 

even if the protected tester did not “manifest symptoms.” The 

related income, request for a live-in aid, waiver of minimum 

approach taken in this study was, thus, full disclosure of MD in 

income or credit requirements, acceptance of rent from a 

all test modes by the individual acknowledging the presence of 

third- party payer, or agreement to communicate through a 

a disability (1) directly (for example, “I have a mental disability”) case worker or family member.42 Kaye (2012: 16) suggested 

and (2) indirectly (for example, rental history). In some cases, 

that “disclosure of a PD [psychiatric disability] through a 

disability was also revealed by asking for a reasonable accom-

written accommodation request accompanying an application 

modation; however, such a request was made only after the first 

can cause a housing applicant to be negatively stereotyped as 

two disclosure methods were completed and all information 

less capable than an applicant without a PD, despite similar 

required for the test to be considered complete was attained. 

qualifications” and can increase likelihood of discrimination.

In all cases, the functional aspects of disability, rather than the 

type of disability, were provided when disclosing any details.

Establishing a Suitable Profile

Tester profiles were matched for consistency between the 

A key concern in this project was to make the testing situation 

protected tester and control tester. Similar backgrounds were 

as realistic as possible. This goal meant that the tester profiles 

used to establish a similarity in rental history. The guidance for 

were required to align with the reality experienced by people 

testers with disabilities during in-person testing and proxies 

with MD but also to not trigger suspicion by the housing 

during the telephone testing, and the exact language used in 

provider or generate bias. The following was recommended.

e-mail testing, are presented subsequently.

•  Type of disability—The specific type of disability was not stated during a test. Instead, protected testers gave the 

E-mail Testing: Strengths and Weak-

broad category of having either MI or I/DD and then revealed 

nesses

more about functional aspects of the disability during the 

interview (telephone or in-person) or in the e-mail.

E-mail testing is important given the growing use of this medi-

um for communication in the rental housing search process. As 

•  Visible characteristics—Race, gender, and age of test 

a testing mode, it has several strengths when focusing on indi-

pairs were driven by actual tester demographics but were 

viduals with disabilities. It also has some limitations, including 

matched across pairs for all test types.

the inability to interpret a nonresponse from a housing provider 

•  Income—The income of each tester was established by 

and the effect such a nonresponse has on the overall set of 

the study team and was in the range needed to afford the 

paired test results. One strategy for addressing this concern is 

unit being sought. Furthermore, testers did not claim SSDI or 

to enlarge the sample, or to  oversample. This approach, too, can any other disability-related income, nor did they indicate 

also have drawbacks, however, especially in smaller markets 

that they were using a Housing Choice Voucher or any other 

where increasing the sample size can also increase the risk of 

form of housing assistance. This condition was to eliminate 

test detection.

any potential bias based on source of income, which is a 

A key strength of e-mail testing is the elimination of potential 

protected class in some jurisdictions but not others. 

fatigue among testers, which was a particular concern raised in 

•  Employment—It was agreed that testers should be 

the discussion of working with people with MD as testers. With 

working to eliminate concerns that unemployment might 

the e-mail as the “tester,” this mode also reduces human error 

be a source of bias for some housing providers. Being 

in reporting because it provides verbatim statements on both 

employed, however, does not ensure sufficient income to 

sides of the transaction—each member of the tester pair and 

afford many apartments (using the “30 percent of income” 

the housing provider. This design allows for the message and 

rule), therefore, control and protected testers’ profiles were 

initial contact of the tester to be controlled, including when and 

designed to include employment that realistically paid 

how the disability is revealed, thus ensuring consistency across 

enough to cover the rent at the property being tested.

42 Kaye (2012: 31) suggested an additional reasonable accommodation request to reveal a PD by having “two applicants requesting that they can break lease with no penalty, but one is asking in case of psychiatric hospitalization and the other is asking in case of military deployment.”

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

41

all tests, which in turn can produce reliable and unambiguous 

evidence of (1) subtle discrimination against the protected 

quantitative measures to determine if clear patterns of discrim-

tester and (2) more overt differences in treatment that could 

ination exist against people with MD.

be categorized as discrimination (Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor 

(2011). See Appendix A, Qualitative Analyses and Findings on 

E-mail testing also provides data that allow for a more systematic 

Overt and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental 

and specific analysis to find evidence of subtle discrimination. 

Disabilities by Different Testing Modes for a more extensive 

Since passage of the FHA, researchers involved in paired 

discussion of this topic.

testing studies have observed that it is rare to find a “smoking 

gun” of proof (Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor, 2011). E-mail 

This analysis also highlighted issues relating to the timing of 

testing provides written data directly from a housing provider 

e-mails in testing, and particularly when the initial housing 

that can then be used to more accurately assess the subtle nature 

inquiry e-mail was received and responded to. In this testing, it 

and extent of discrimination (Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor, 

could only be assumed from the e-mail time stamp that the order in 

2011; HDLP, 2012).

which an e-mail response was received by the testing team was 

also the order in which it was read by the housing provider.

Subtle discrimination may be used to discourage someone in 

a protected class from pursuing a particular housing option. 

Although a new frontier in testing, this project confirms that 

It can also include more favorable treatment of the protected 

e-mail testing research can generate reliable results that, based 

class. For example, recent testing in Vermont involving in-person 

on statistical analysis of quantitative data, can be used to deter-

testing of people with disabilities, including MD, found that 

mine discrimination. These same data can be coded for both 

27 percent of the control testers were positively favored, but 

quantitative and qualitative analysis to look systematically for 

neither protected nor control testers experienced outright dis-

evidence of subtle forms of discrimination, which may be of use 

crimination.43 The e-mail data produced for this project were 

in future testing efforts. Table 34 summarizes the pros and cons 

coded and analyzed using qualitative methods, which found 

of the e-mail method of testing.

Table 34. Pros and Cons of E-mail Testing 

Pros

Cons

Cost effective for a large number of tests.

Captures only first point-of-contact step of housing search process.

Automated system generates predetermined script.

No live interaction with housing provider.

Logistically straightforward.

Many larger housing providers use canned, scripted replies regardless of initial request—unclear whether provider is responding to the 

disability component. 

Test administrators, but no testers—eliminates tester fatigue and error.

Potential for low response rate requires larger sample size. 

Less time consuming than other modes (e-mail is the data so no report Data are limited to the e-mail returned.

forms or debriefing required).

Provides exact language used by housing provider for analysis.

Difficult to interpret nonresponses.

Telephone Testing: Strengths and 

•  Testers have no face-to-face interaction with housing 

Weaknesses

providers, so interpreting responses to questions is based 

solely on what people say over a telephone, which may be 

The number of telephone tests that were completed, 

different than if the conversation occurred in person. 

including those tests that included a request for a reasonable 

•  Compared with e-mail testing, telephone testing produces 

accommodation, exceeded the goals for this test mode. This 

detailed field notes to use in subsequent analysis. Although 

result demonstrates that telephone testing can produce a high 

a positive, it is also a negative because it requires additional 

volume of tests for analysis in a relatively short period of time 

time for testers to produce their reports.

and can be used successfully to produce useful data.

•  The particular test design here, which used proxies, is not 

The telephone mode of testing also has its limitations, howev-

the equivalent of actually speaking with a person with MI 

er, including—

or I/DD. The results, although valid and useful, may not be 

as socially valid as using a person with MD to do the testing.

43 Housing Discrimination Law Project of Vermont Legal Aid (2012).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

42

Based on the successful use of testers with MD for in-person 

is in place. As noted previously, the social validity of this testing testing as part of this project, the study team believes that it 

is likely to increase if people with disabilities are used in the 

would be feasible to conduct telephone testing that employs 

testing process to make telephone calls.

people with MD to serve as protected testers, making calls and 

Table 35 summarizes the observed pros and cons of telephone 

requesting information about the apartment for themselves, 

testing. As with e-mail testing, most of the issues are not unique 

assuming that a strong commitment to training and oversight 

to testing for discrimination against people with MD.

Table 35. Pros and Cons of Telephone Testing 

Pros

Cons

Live interaction w/housing provider.

No face-to-face interaction.

Use of proxy without a disability as friend or family member to conduct Not the equivalent of actually speaking to people with MI or I/DD.

test allows for more flexibility in recruiting, training, and scheduling testers. 

Can be conducted from anywhere in the United States (one centralized Requires being in a location with sufficient MD community to recruit location or group of remote locations).

from if using population to test.

Testers have script in front of them during test and record results in real Although detailed field notes a positive, they require time for testers time.

to produce, unlike e-mail, for which returned e-mail response alone is used.

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

In-Person Testing: Strengths and 

key participants and stakeholders were conducted, including 

Weaknesses As Evaluated by Testers 

(1) project leaders, (2) testers with I/DD, (3) testers with MI, 

With MD and Companion Testers

and (4) companion testers.

Additional earlier focus groups, primarily consisting of testers, 

In-person testing is a labor-intensive process for any protected 

were held in the weeks immediately after the completion of 

class, given the recruitment and retention strategies needed to 

in-person testing and data collection so participants could reflect 

ensure that the required number of paired tests is executed. In 

on their testing experiences. The detailed approach and results 

this study, one significant concern was that people with MD 

of the focus groups, which includes quotes from participants, 

would require more time between tests to reduce potential for 

can be found in one of the short papers associated with this 

fatigue, and that therefore completing the planned number 

project,  Accessible & Participatory Methods for Involving People of tests within a reasonable timeframe would necessitate the 

with Mental Disabilities In Housing Discrimination Testing.

recruitment of a larger number of testers, which can have sig-

nificant cost implications. In addition, the use of a companion 

Strategies for Tester Recruitment, Selection, 

tester raised concerns regarding both increased costs and a 

possible delay in testing as a result of having to coordinate 

Retention, and Matching

multiple schedules for each test.

Test coordinators from the two participating fair housing testing 

organizations broadly recruited potential testers by contacting 

The initial literature review and focus groups, input from the 

a variety of community groups and organizations with which 

expert panel, and a small set of in-person pretests served as 

people with MI and I/DD had active contact, such as programs 

preparatory steps to working with in-person testers with MI 

that provide housing or community living services. Because 

and I/DD. These efforts were designed to provide key insight 

of widespread employment disparities among this population, 

into housing discrimination experienced by this population 

some people with MI and I/DD were found to be more available 

and ideas for how to involve community members as in-person 

to work as testers; however, the availability of testers who were 

fair housing testers, including the recruitment, selection, and 

currently unemployed may also have restricted the recruitment 

training of testers and the data collection process.

of testers with full-time jobs or busy schedules.

The in-person testing had a smaller sample size and a longer 

Test coordinators also implemented extended interactions with 

execution time, and it was conducted in only two, very large 

potential testers to allow for the evaluation of the “fit” between 

housing markets. To evaluate the inclusion and active partic-

the tester and the testing responsibilities involved (that is, 

ipation of people with MD as testers, four focus groups with 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

43

discerning if the candidate could complete the essential job 

independently, and early in the partnership, to ensure that the 

duties). During these interactions, test coordinators provided 

pair was a good match. This assessment of the match began 

potential testers a candid and thorough description of the 

during the initial training, when the team purposively built in 

project and their expected role, including an emphasis on 

many opportunities for pairs to get to know each other and 

the responsibilities of being a tester versus other roles in the 

become comfortable with each other during practice tests. Test 

project, assessing how the potential tester understood his or 

coordinators and testers agreed that a tester’s choice of his or 

her role, and the potential tester’s comfort with pretending to 

her companion was very important to the comfort and fidelity 

be searching for an apartment and disclosing their disability 

of the tester and data collection and agreed that pairs should be 

during the housing search process. All these issues were 

rematched if one of the members was not comfortable. 

proactively addressed during the initial tester training. For 

some, initial training helped test coordinators make a final 

Preparing and Supporting Testers: Initial 

determination about a potential tester’s involvement in the 

Training

actual in-person tests.

Project leaders worked to design tester training to effectively 

In addition, the study team learned how best to deliver train-

engage testers with both MI and I/DD and to actively support 

ing to potential testers with MD, by simplifying and limiting 

their learning. For both groups, training materials deempha-

background information and lecture and instead focusing on 

sized complicated text, reduced the number of ideas presented 

short practice exercises, open discussion of any questions, and 

at one time, and incorporated graphics, photos, and images 

other modifications that enable testers to gain comfort carrying 

to illustrate more abstract points such as civil rights. The 

out a test and working with a companion tester.

trainings also included opportunities to observe testing skits 

Test coordinators also noted that they needed to allocate 

performed by test coordinators and project staff first, and then 

significant time to the recruitment process, needing initially 

for testing pairs to actively engage in several different testing 

to recruit about three times the number of testers needed. For 

scenarios by role-plays (moving from working in pairs with an 

example, in some cases, most notably among potential testers 

assigned project staff to role-playing in front of the whole group 

with I/DD, availability and reliability were issues (for example, 

and getting feedback thereafter), and they included frequent 

getting training scheduled, not showing up for scheduled 

breaks to take in information learned. Basing their approach 

training, the availability of reliable transportation, and the 

on initial insights from stakeholder focus groups and expert 

need to navigate a new transportation route without support). 

panel meetings conducted at the start of the project, project 

Finding available testers was especially difficult given the need 

leaders delivered the training differently for each group to 

to coordinate I/DD testers with companion testers for initial 

maximize their learning. For example, testers with I/DD had the 

training, practice testing, and each in-person test.

information broken into smaller units followed immediately by 

opportunities to practice a small skill first and then build up 

Despite these challenges, test coordinators from the two 

to practicing a full test and then onto an actual practice test in 

participating testing organizations were able to recruit the 

the field, and testers with MI received initial information in one 

required number of testers due to their extensive contacts and 

sitting and then practiced different scenarios.

continual networking with community groups and people with 

disabilities. These established connections with community 

Testers reported that these experiences—particularly the oppor-

groups and people with disabilities were essential to this effort 

tunity to practice and receive individualized feedback—helped 

and would be difficult for organizations not familiar with and 

them learn their responsibilities and feel prepared for their role. 

embedded within disability communities to replicate. The use 

Some testers noted that when the time between training and testing 

of these community-based testing organizations was a critical 

in the field was significant, it was beneficial to have opportuni-

component of the project and a key to success in actively 

ties to brush up on their skills and review the testing protocol. 

supporting people with MD during the in-person testing effort.

Project leaders observed that ensuring that the training had a 

good deal of time devoted to hands on learning was essential.

Test coordinators also noted that it was important to identify 

people who would be good companion testers, and they noted 

Preparing and Supporting Testers: 

that ensuring a strong rapport between a tester with disabilities 

and his or her companion tester was key to the protected 

Ongoing Support During In-Person Testing

testers’ comfort and to the quality and efficiency of testing. Test 

The in-person paired testing was also designed to support 

coordinators also noted that it was especially important that 

testers during data collection in ways that testers and compan-they consult with both the protected tester and the companion 

ion testers found helpful. Project leaders provided scripts and 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

44

checklists to help testers remember the personal information 

a pair made the experience more enjoyable. Protected testers 

they would need to provide during testing. They also provided 

and companion testers noted that the support provided by 

reminders via e-mail, telephone, or both (cell phone communi-

companion testers during data collection may have also added 

cations were used frequently before, during, and after testing) 

credibility to the disclosure of a disability by testers. On the 

and were readily available to respond to questions and assist 

other hand, some companion testers wondered whether their 

with unanticipated problems.

presence tempered potential opportunities for differential 

treatment by landlords.

Many project leaders and testers agreed that being able to debrief 

with test coordinators immediately after each test (either by 

Most thought that companion testers were most effective when 

telephone or in person) was very helpful. The testing protocols 

they saw their relationship with the tester as a partnership; 

required debriefing within 48 hours of the actual test and, in 

that is, when companions understood that they were there to 

many cases, testers completed debriefing immediately after the 

support testers, not to be testers. To achieve this understanding, 

test or within 24 hours. For some testers, being able to complete 

companion testers needed to be flexible to their paired tester’s 

the forms at the testing coordination agency allowed them 

needs and preferences. The dynamic of successful relationships 

access to onsite computers and to test coordinators in case any 

was evident when testers and companion testers had discussed 

questions arose. These factors were reported to have helped 

and agreed on each individual’s role and responsibility, had 

the testers submit completed forms quickly and accurately.

good communication before and after data collection, and both 

contributed to the completion and approval of reporting forms. 

Whether for training or data collection, project leaders thought 

Mentoring, training, and role-playing may be required to help 

it was important to ask testers what they needed assistance 

companion testers excel in these supporting roles. The need 

with (for example, writing, reading, or a quiet room to 

for training on how to be a good companion tester may have 

complete forms in) and to be flexible in responding to testers’ 

been particularly relevant for companion testers who had been 

emergent needs. Many noted that the level of support needed 

testers in other fair housing testing situations. Although their 

decreased over time as testers increased their skills and level 

previous experience provided great knowledge and insight, they 

of comfort. Although some testers initially felt nervous, they 

also had to transition to playing a supporting role, rather than 

reported becoming increasingly comfortable as they gained 

the primary role, during a test.

experience. Thus, it was important to support a key group of 

testers so they could do many tests and feel comfortable in 

When directly asked whether companion testers were needed, 

doing so, rather than trying to have a large pool of testers who 

the study team agreed that most testers with I/DD would need 

completed only one or two tests each.

a companion tester to complete data collection. The study team 

also believes, however, that most testers with MI, and perhaps 

Preparing and Supporting Testers: Use of 

some testers with I/DD, could initially benefit from a compan-

Companion Testers As Ongoing Supports

ion but could potentially conduct testing on their own as they 

gained experience.

Companion testers also provided support to protected testers 

during data collection. For example, when testers forgot to ask 

Documenting Differential Treatment and 

a question of a landlord, “got off track,” or “froze,” companion 

testers were able to naturally prompt the tester or provide a 

the Role of the Companion Tester

response. Companion testers also reassured testers and helped 

Some protected testers reported that they thought they 

them feel less nervous during data collection or when in a new 

experienced negative treatment by housing providers or agents 

area of their community. Companion testers were also able to 

and that the companion tester helped to document and handle 

provide assistance by taking notes, organizing and remember-

that treatment. For example, one tester was asked repeatedly 

ing information, helping out when unanticipated situations 

whether he had a criminal background, what his income was, 

arose, and in some cases with transportation.

and whether he could afford the unit. Another thought the 

housing provider was suggesting she may not be intelligent 

Many testers with MD and companion testers thought that 

enough to live in the building, and another was told that the 

the presence of the companion testers may have helped the 

landlord would “pray for her.” Others reported landlords acting 

protected tester feel less stressed, because immediate support 

distracted (talking on the telephone or looking at their watch), 

was available. It was also noted that protected testers and 

being abrupt in interactions, refusing to provide an application 

their companion testers complemented one another during 

(likely because an application had been received earlier in the 

data collection by offering different ideas and that working as 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

45

day), or simply “giving attitude.” Companion testers had the 

•  Agreed that experienced testers with I/DD and MI, and 

sense that testers appreciated having someone with them to 

companion testers, might be well-equipped to train future 

witness and validate this treatment.

testers, and their role as peer mentors and trainers should 

be considered in future studies.

Recommendations for Expanded Testing 

•  Emphasized the value of building in time for mentoring 

in the Future

and one-on-one training.

Although they understood the scientific value of the current 

Testers with MI and I/DD and their companion testers also 

testing approach and its focus on one specific disability group, 

made valuable suggestions, including—

many testers stated that they wished the project could be 

•  Agreeing on the benefits of making sure that everyone has 

broadened to better reflect the actual experiences of individuals 

an opportunity to role-play and complete a practice test 

with MD, especially because many people with MD experience 

with feedback.

more than one functional limitation. For example, some 

people with I/DD also were anticipating some future physical 

•  Noting that having all testers engage in more than one 

accessibility issues and wanted to be able to document those as 

practice test might be advantageous.

well. They also thought it would be illuminating to study the 

•  Suggesting that, although each person is unique, trainings 

qualities of accessible housing, particularly what that means 

should include some general information about MI and I/DD 

and looks like for people with MD.

at the start of tester interaction that, in a respectful way, 

In considering the expansion of matched-pair testing to 

acknowledges the considerable heterogeneity of people 

study housing discrimination on the basis of MD to a larger 

with MD. 

geographic scale, project leaders, testers, and companions had 

•  Recommending that they receive a checklist detailing 

many recommendations. For example, project leaders—

everything they should do before a test (including practical 

•  Thought that having an experienced, centralized oversight 

information, such as use the restroom). 

team would be important to ensuring that the data 

•  Expressing a desire that they do tests in areas where their 

collection protocols are being administered similarly 

personal characteristics match those of the local communi-

across sites (including for training), to facilitate ongoing 

ty and in areas that “feel safe.” 

communications among sites, and to provide ongoing 

•  Noting that it would be helpful to attempt to make sure 

support and accommodations, as needed.

that apartment-viewing appointments were with leasing 

•  Confirmed the importance of some strategies that were 

agents and not with maintenance personnel.

used in this project, such as the need for housing organiza-

•  Suggesting that they should also be involved in making 

tions to partner closely with organizations run by people 

calls to arrange apartment-viewing appointments, because 

with disabilities within testing regions to succeed in this 

some profile information is requested at that point of contact.

work.

•  Raising the issue of how to ensure that testers receive 

•  Stressed the importance of allowing adequate time for 

support for any emotional reactions they may have during 

the recruitment, training, and ongoing support of testers 

data collection. 

with MD, with some suggesting the initial recruitment of 

approximately three times as many testers as originally 

•  Encouraging testers and companion testers to return to the 

needed.

testing coordination agency after each test to debrief and 

complete reporting forms, and after testing would also be 

•  Believed that holding training in places that are familiar 

a potential time to support them emotionally, give them 

to potential testers, such as at disability and community 

additional resources if needed, or both.

organizations, could help attract testers with MD because 

they are more likely to trust these sites.

•  Urging that test assignment and report forms be as clear as 

possible so that testers and companions would have fewer 

•  Emphasized that, in preparing testers and companion 

questions for test coordinators.

testers for data collection, the research team and com-

panion testers should not make assumptions about what 

•  Raising the possibility of alternative payment options 

testers can and cannot do.

so that those who receive disability benefits could more 

fully participate without having their subsidized disability 

income being at risk.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

46

Finally, several testers suggested that all testers should have the 

The pros and cons of in-person testing are summarized in Table 36. 

chance to reflect and debrief at the end of the project, similar 

In-person testing yields richer data than the other modes, but it 

to what was done in debriefing focus groups with a small 

costs more and takes more time to complete the tests. Although 

sample of testers and staff in this study. Testers expressed 

that is true for any protected class, the pros and cons are ampli-

that the focus groups enabled them to validate their feelings, 

fied when using people with disabilities as testers. Depending 

revisit their experiences and make sense of them, reconnect 

on the objective, the added time and costs associated need to be 

with other testers and companion testers, and validate their 

weighed against the data produced.

contributions and role in the overall project.

Table 36. Pros and Cons of In-Person Testing

Pros

Cons

Face-to-face interaction with a housing provider captures richest, most Logistically complex; scheduling of two testers and companion for 

realistic interaction information, including verbal and nonverbal responses. protected tester to conduct tests and debrief.

Test reaches deeper into rental transaction.

Tester recruitment, training, support, and retention are challenging.

Involves people with MI and I/DD in conducting research, which increases  Potential for tester fatigue and emotional reactions need to be consid-social validity of findings.

ered in training and debriefing support. 

Use of companion without disability provides additional attention to Requires longer time in the field for testing to coordinate tests.

detailed observations and field notes for improved rigor of analysis of findings. 

Upfront screening and training reduces attrition, and people with MD 

Requires more preparation, time, and resources, especially collaboration were found to be effective testers.

and involvement of disability and community organizations that understand how to provide accommodations to testers with MI and  I/DD.

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

47

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The pilot testing effort documented in this report represents 

Rates of adverse treatment also varied between disability types, 

the largest and most comprehensive effort to date to validate with higher rates of adverse treatment noted for individuals 

methods of testing for housing discrimination against people 

with MI than for individuals with I/DD. This finding may indicate 

with mental disabilities. The pilot testing also represents the 

that individuals with MI face more negative stereotypes and 

first time that people with MI and I/DD have been enlisted to 

stigma from housing providers and their agents.44 This study, 

serve as in-person testers in a housing discrimination study of 

however, was not large enough to yield conclusive evidence 

this size and therefore contributes significantly to the knowl-

about what motivation might be underlying the observed dif-

edge about disability-related housing discrimination and the 

ferential treatment between people with MI as compared with 

design of research methodologies that are accessible, inclusive, 

people with I/DD, nor was the study designed to examine dif-

and participatory to people with MI and I/DD.

ferential discrimination based on type of MD. Future larger-scale 

research should explore these questions and might include 

The testing conducted in this study documented significant 

additional focus groups with housing providers to discuss study 

levels of adverse differential treatment toward individuals with 

findings and to seek housing providers’ reactions and responses 

MD when compared with the treatment of a control group of 

to the results of fair housing testing.

individuals who did not have MD. Such adverse differential 

treatment included observations that individuals with MI or I/

In both e-mail and telephone testing, a significant percentage 

DD were—

of individuals with MI and I/DD also experienced adverse treat-

ment with respect to requests for a reasonable accommodation. 

•

Less likely to receive a response to their inquiry (17.55 percent The reasonable accommodations requested were identified as 

of tests favored the control group of people without dis-

specific to the protected tester’s functional needs. The willing-

abilities compared with 9.19 percent that favored people 

ness of a housing provider to grant a request for a reasonable 

with MI and I/DD in e-mail testing).

accommodation varied by mode of testing, with requests for 

•

Less likely to be told an advertised unit was available (5.94 

a reasonable accommodation made by telephone receiving 

percent favored people without disabilities compared with 

significantly more favorable responses than requests made by 

0.99 percent that favored people with MI and I/DD in 

e-mail.45 This finding may reflect the fact that housing providers 

in-person testing).

were able to have a more personal or indepth conversation with 

the tester with MD via telephone, resulting in more favorable 

•

Less likely to be invited to contact the housing provider to see responses to these requests. On the contrary, in e-mail testing, 

the unit (7.69 percent favored people without disabilities 

replies were often more formal and very limited in scope. These 

compared with 0.00 percent that favored people with MI 

experiences may advise the use of telephone over e-mail testing 

and I/DD in e-mail testing).

in future large-scale discrimination testing.

•

Less likely to be invited to inspect the unit (21.26 percent Negative responses to testers’ requests for a reasonable accom-favored people without disabilities compared with 16.47 

modation ranged from outright denials to more subtle barriers, 

percent that favored people with MI and I/DD in telephone 

such as indications that the individual with MD would be 

testing). 

responsible for actively seeking out and appealing the denial 

•

More likely to be encouraged to look at a different unit than the of their request with higher-level managers whose name and 

one advertised, a potential indicator of steering people with contact information were then not provided.46 These findings 

MI and I/DD toward specific buildings or areas within 

on responses to requests for reasonable accommodations 

rental complexes, resulting in segregated living patterns.

further add to potential discrimination against people with 

44 This observation was supported in the qualitative data obtained from focus groups of people with MI that were conducted both before and after the testing to reflect on their experiences.

45 In-person testing protocols did not include a request by the protected tester for a reasonable accommodation.

46 In addition, testing results varied by rental market, with the rate of granting a reasonable accommodation request lowest in Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI (38.6 percent) and highest in Albuquerque, NM (75.5 percent).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

48

MD, and it is recommended that reasonable accommodation 

rights organizations to coordinate and debrief testers is a highly 

requests be included in in-person testing in the future, using 

effective design for testing focused on disability and was a 

a test design similar to that used in telephone testing in this 

critical component of the successful completion of in-person 

project, wherein requests for a reasonable accommodation are 

testing in the given timeframe in this study.

not made unless the tester is invited to inspect the unit.

The use of companion testers, although adding cost and 

This study also yielded significant findings on how to imple-

coordinating time, resulted in several important benefits to the 

ment fully inclusive fair housing testing employing people with 

project, including—

MD. All three modes of testing that were carried out (e-mail, 

•  Providing valuable cognitive and emotional assistance to 

telephone, and in person) showed promise for bringing testing 

testers with MD before, during, and after each test.

for housing discrimination on the basis of MD to a national 

scale. Each produced a different form of testing data that not 

•  Providing a natural way to reveal the MD via a friend in 

only yielded evidence of discrimination but also provided 

conversation while viewing a unit.

insights on opportunities for future testing.

•  Providing a means to confirm what had been heard and to 

Because online housing searches and e-mail communications 

clarify what was observed during each test, thus providing 

with housing providers during these searches is anticipated 

richer data and field note observations. 

to increase, efforts to use e-mail testing in this project should 

inform future e-mail testing. Observations include—

•  For testers who used public transit, companions often 

(although they were not expected to) provided transit 

•  E-mail testing is a relatively cost-effective method of 

assistance or went along on public transportation with the 

tracking changes over time in discrimination in initial 

tester with MD, ensuring that both testers would get to 

contacts people with MD have with housing providers 

appointments in a timely fashion.

(that is, trying to get in the door).

Findings from this project, although important in documenting 

•  Longitudinal data showing a change in the rates of differ-

how housing discrimination may occur against people with 

ential treatment of people with MD could be efficiently 

MI and I/DD as they seek rental housing, are limited given the 

collected by subsequent e-mail testing of the same sample 

small sample sizes, particularly when attempting analyses on 

of housing providers.

variations of treatment between subcategories of paired tests, 

such as gender, race, type of disability, and geography. Future 

•  E-mail could also be useful for monitoring how housing 

research, done on a larger scale, could examine other important 

providers are responding to reasonable accommodation 

issues, for example—

requests, if a followup e-mail is added to further interact 

on the reasonable accommodation request. This technique 

•  Are people with different types of MD, or different requests 

could also ensure that the housing provider is responding 

for other types of reasonable accommodations, met with 

directly to the request as opposed to sending a scripted or 

less favorable responses or more discrimination? 

form reply.

•  How do factors such as age, gender, race, and previous 

The in-person testing in this study that specifically involved 

living status contribute to or interact with MD to affect 

testers with MD demonstrates that people with MI and I/DD 

rental housing access? 

can serve as effective testers when the proper training and 

supports are provided.

•  How does income or economic status interact with MD to 

affect housing access and choice?

As the first large-scale in-person testing that had people with 

MD as testers, this project demonstrated the importance of 

•  How does the use of rent subsidies (for example, Housing 

disability-focused and directed training. The entire process of 

Choice Vouchers) and other government-supported 

engagement with testers, from recruitment to training, testing, 

sources of income for housing affect housing access and 

and debriefing, was grounded in constant feedback from 

choice for people with MD?

the people with MD and members of the expert panel. The 

Finally, efforts to find protocols to study and test for housing 

evidence from the in-person testing in this project suggests 

discrimination after initial contact with a housing provider (for 

strongly that both populations can also conduct telephone 

example, application results, before move in, after move in, 

testing if the same approach to training and debriefing is used. 

changes in response to requests for reasonable accommodations 

This project demonstrates that the training and use of disability 

over time, and criteria for lease termination) should continue.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

49

Based on the results of the study, the authors make the follow-

Recruitment and Selection of Testers

ing recommendations.

•  Reinforce responsibilities and expectations of participation 

•

A broad-based education initiative should be created to ed-

with potential testers to encourage increased reliability and 

ucate housing providers, including owners and landlords 

validity of findings.

and their agents, about fair housing rights and obligations 

and about appropriate policies and practices when dealing 

•  Provide sufficient time, resources, and expertise to recruit, 

with individuals with MI, I/DD, and other MD.

select, and support team members with MD.

•  Public and private housing, disability, and civil rights 

•  Have a sustained selection process for testers and compan-

organizations should  redouble efforts to engage and educate 

ion testers that allows for time to build relationships and 

the community of people with MI, I/DD, and other MD about 

develop a fit between test pairs.

their rights under federal, state, and local antidiscrimina-

•  Involve experienced testers with MD in tester recruitment 

tion laws, how to recognize potential discrimination, and 

and selection as they also have key contacts and networks 

what actions to take when faced with discrimination.

throughout protected communities.

•

Additional research is necessary to better understand the 

scope and severity of the discriminatory barriers en-

Training and Data Collection

countered by individuals with MI and I/DD as they seek, 

obtain, and retain accessible rental housing.

•  Be proactive and flexible in accommodating team members 

with MD in training and data collection, including specific 

•

Individuals with MI and I/DD can and should be an integral 

attention to strategies to make participation more accessi-

part of future housing research and testing, housing dis-

ble and inclusive to this community.

crimination education initiatives, and efforts to strengthen 

housing policy to promote equal housing opportunity.

•  Have a choice and range of supports and accommodations 

available to testers, and match emotional support to 

In addition, protected and companion testers involved in the 

individual needs, adjusting the supports as needed as 

in-person testing for this project offered the following summary 

testers gain experience.

recommendations for including people with MD in future 

•  Provide testers with choice throughout the process, 

housing discrimination research.

including a choice of whether to stay with a companion 

tester or to choose another that is a better fit.

Project Leadership and Design

•  Ensure that all testers have time to role-play, practice, and 

•  Project leadership is deeply important to people with 

receive individualized feedback during trainings.

MD. Having test coordinator sites embedded within local 

•  Train companion testers to provide positive, effective support 

disability and housing rights organizations was especially 

to testers with MD in a respectful, person-directed way.

valuable in supporting testers with disabilities.

•  Assess the value of companion testers—between the added 

•  Testing sites and all project members should actively foster 

credibility and validity added to the capture of testing data 

commitment to, and belief in, the inclusion of people with 

versus the potentially unanticipated effect that their pres-

MD at all stages of research projects.

ence may actually decrease or buffer differential treatment.

•  An inclusive project should foster coleadership, in which 

•  Design all materials, illustrations, role-plays, and videos 

the research team and the protected community colead 

in all training and data collection instructions and forms 

and collaborate to design and conduct discrimination 

using clear, concise, and plain language.

research with a goal of bringing housing discrimination 

experts together with people with personal experience 

•  Use technology to enable people with MD to take on 

with disability to fully and accurately understand the 

increasingly independent roles in testing, such as the use 

actual experiences people have when seeking housing.

of voice-operated smartphones or tablets during data 

collection and reporting.

•  Future testing should use experienced testers with MD 

(such as those from this project) and their experiences in 

•  Discuss in initial trainings the attitudes that may be 

protocol development and training as peer trainers and 

encountered during tests and how to capture attitudes and 

mentors in a train-the-trainer model.

treatment in more detail in reporting.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

50

Appendix A: Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt 

and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental 

Disabilities by Different Testing Modes

The purpose of this additional indepth qualitative study was 

ways: (1) disclosing having lived in a psychiatric facility or 

to provide detailed qualitative analyses of the overt and subtle 

nursing home for the past year, (2) directly identifying himself 

discrimination experienced by people with mental disability 

or herself as a person with I/DD or MI, and (3) requesting a rea-

(MD)—that is, people with mental illness (MI) and people with 

sonable accommodation (that is, using an assistance animal or 

intellectual or developmental disability (I/DD)—as gathered 

requesting a verbal rental payment reminder). The other tester 

from multiple sources including e-mail, telephone, and in-person 

in the pair (control tester) did not identify as having a disability testing, field notes, and tester debriefing reports. The following 

and instead identified as someone who recently graduated from 

research questions were used to guide the qualitative analyses.

college or who had been living with his or her parents to show 

a matched previous rental history. Both testers in a pair were 

•  Is there evidence of  subtle discrimination on the basis of also given matching profiles that included similar income and 

mental disability in the e-mail, telephone, and in-person 

job histories, at a level adequate to pay for a one-bedroom rent-

tests conducted during this study, and what does it look like?

al unit in that market, and other similar personal demographics 

•  Is there evidence of  overt discrimination on the basis of other than disability status.

mental disability in the telephone and in-person tests 

conducted during this study, and what does it look like?

E-mail Testing

As reflected in the larger discrimination study, 359 e-mail pairs 

Qualitative Analysis Methodology

were sent out, including 176 pairs with testers with I/DD and 

183 pairs with testers with MI. Out of those 359, 187 pairs 

The structure and process for the analyses was guided by 

received at least one response from an agent or landlord. To 

Ahmed and Hammarstedt (2008), who examined subtle 

qualitatively compare the e-mails in this particular phase of 

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the rental 

the study, we selected only e-mail pairs that both received 

housing market using e-mail testing, and by Hanson, Hawley, 

responses (n = 91 pairs). Of those 91 pairs, 9 were not codable 

and Taylor (2011), who proposed a methodology for qualita-

for the following reasons: (1) different agent responded, (2) agent 

tively analyzing e-mail contents for subtle discrimination. As 

noticed the testing and test was not used, or (3) lack of quali-

in these previous studies, this study used matched-pair tests in 

tative data to code. Therefore, 82 pairs were codable, including 

that each pair was matched in key demographics (for example, 

45 pairs with a tester with I/DD and 37 pairs with a tester with 

age, gender, and race or ethnicity) except for MD status, with 

MI. Out of the 82 e-mail pairs, 25 e-mail tests also included a 

one tester having an identified MD and one tester not having MD.

reasonable accommodation request that could be analyzed (see 

The tester with MD (protected tester) specifically disclosed 

Figure A-1).

having either MI or I/DD. This reveal occurred in multiple 

Figure A-1. E-mail Testing Responses

E-mail pairs 

not codable

(n = 9)

E-mail pairs with 

E-mail pairs sent out 

at least 

E-mail pairs with 

I/DD testers 

With RA request

(n = 359)

one response 

responses to both 

(n = 45)

(n = 10)

(n = 187)

(n = 91)

E-mail pairs

 coded

(n = 82)

MI testers

With RA request

(n = 37)

(n = 15)

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness. RA = reasonable accommodation.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

51

Telephone and In-Person Testing

E-mail Testing Only: Quantitative 

A total of 668 pairs participated in telephone tests of ran-

Coding of Keywords Indicating Subtle 

domly selected available apartment ads across nine different 

Discrimination

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). In-person testing 

The housing discrimination study by Hanson, Hawley, and Tay-

involved a visit to view the apartment by 101 pairs in the 

lor (2011) provided significant guidance for the interpretation 

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI, and the Washington-Ar-

of the results of e-mail testing, especially because e-mail testing 

lington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSAs, 83 of which had 

yields an explicit and defined text-based inquiry and response 

valid qualitative data to additionally code. See Table A-1.

that can be analyzed verbatim.

Table A-1. Samples of Telephone and In-Person 

Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor describe several dimensions of 

Testing 

coding favorable and unfavorable treatment in landlord-tenant 

Type of Disability

correspondence. They describe favorable treatment as including 

Type

Sample

Total

I/DD

MI

examples “if landlords describe the unit in a positive way, if 

Telephone

Valid pairs 

300

352

652

they mentioned other available units, if they invited further 

Missinga 

11

5

16

contact, and if they used generally friendly language” (Hanson, 

Total 

311

357

668

In person

Valid pairs

48

35

83

Hawley, and Taylor, 2011: 281) and unfavorable treatment as 

Missinga

3

15

18

asking the tenant for more information about their employment 

Total

51

50

101

or background or also as using more discouraging language, 

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

such as emphasizing additional fees and building rules. In 

a Qualitative data were not available to code.

addition to the keyword list Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor cre-

ated, the analysis here added more unfavorable and favorable 

Data Analysis

treatment dimensions specific to MD (for example, asking for 

further disability-related information or disclosure) that were 

A mixed-methods approach was used to analyze data, beginning 

identified after a round of pilot coding.

with qualitative analyses, followed by quantitative frequency 

counts and analyses of summary themes, to answer the re-

Using the subtle discrimination keywords listed in Table A-2, two 

search questions and fully understand discrimination practiced 

members of the study team coded the frequency of positive and 

by housing providers. Each type of testing used different data 

negative languages used in e-mails. These counts were com-

analysis methods, as described in the following section.

pared between the protected and control groups and divided 

into four categories: (1) present in neither, (2) present in both, 

(3) control group only, and (4) protected group only. Evidence 

of subtle discrimination was coded if positive language was 

shown more frequently in the control tester only or if negative 

language was more frequently present in the protected tester only.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

52

Table A-2. Subtle Discrimination Indicator Keyword Groups

Category

Keywords

Positive language categories

Positive descriptive  New

Clean 

Quiet 

Nice 

Good 

Beautifula

Othera  

(for example, 

wonderful)

View unit

Tour 

Stop 

Visit 

See 

Appointmenta

Othera

Show

Come

Meet

View 

Look

Tour time  offered

Specific time

Range of time

Prompts

Quick  

Todaya  

Call

Application

Look forward toa

Other (for example, Let me 

Hurry  

Tomorrowa

know, questions)

Fast

Greetings 

Hi  

Dear

Good morning/

Othersa

Hello  

afternoon

Hey

Polite

Thank you  

Sincerely

Regards  

Please

Love toa  

Othera

Thanks

Best

Happy toa

Other units

Second

Several

Other

Negative language categories

Fees

Application fee

Deposit fee

$

Fee starting

Othera (for example,., pet policy, move-in fee)

Employment

Employment

Employer

Income

Paystub

Credit

Othera  

(for example, source of rent)

Background

Criminal

Background

Verification 

Othera

Verify

Discouraging

Already rented

No longer

Not available

Best wishesa

Good lucka

Othera

History

Rental history

Eviction

Othera

Negative descriptive Old

Needs work

Othera

Disabilitya

Disability  

Medication 

Treatment  

Accommodation Service dog

Other (for example, mentally 

Handicap 

Hospitalization

Treated

competent, caregiver)

Diagnosis

a Indicates keywords that were added in this study.

Qualitative Interpretation and Grounded 

these qualitative data, the findings were aggregated into themes. 

Theory Analysis: E-mail, Telephone, and 

These themes then were used as criteria for determining subtle 

or overt discrimination.

In-Person Testing

Because additional qualitative data were available and new, 

Converting Qualitative Findings to 

given the focus on testers with MD in this study, a grounded 

Summary Frequency Counts: E-mail, 

theory qualitative approach was used to generate a framework 

to analyze and code both overt discrimination (as defined 

Telephone, and In-Person Testing

within the Fair Housing Act) and more subtle, potential 

Qualitative data were assigned a quantitative descriptive 

discrimination. After coding the keywords, the two coders 

frequency count—if subtle, overt, or no discrimination was 

also qualitatively described their overall impression of each 

indicated—an assessment of whether the response showed 

pair of e-mails, concerning subtle or overt discrimination (or 

or did not show an openness for further communication with 

both) against one tester. Each decision was associated with a 

the landlord. All quantitative data were entered into an SPSS 

description of evidence for subtle or overt discrimination or 

17.0. Descriptive analysis and cross-tabulation analysis were 

no subtle or overt discrimination, as identified by coders. If 

conducted to examine the frequency and proportion of different 

consensus on the discrimination status could not be reached 

categories indicating subtle discrimination. McNemar’s Test 

between the two coders, a third, blinded member coded the 

was used to analyze the difference in treatment between the 

e-mail to resolve the difference. By constant comparison of 

control and protected groups (McNemar, 1947), with a  p-value of less than .05 used to indicate significantly different treatment 

between control and protected testers.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

53

Results

unfavorable treatment to people with MD by using at least 

one of the seven negative language categories. Combined, 37 

E-mail Testing

e-mails (45.1 percent) showed at least one category of subtle 

discrimination present.

Quantitative Analysis of Keywords Related to 

Subtle Discrimination

Qualitative Themes and Descriptive Frequency 

Counts on Subtle Discrimination

Quantitative analysis of keywords for positive and negative 

language shows significantly different treatment in several 

During e-mail testing, seven themes emerged related to subtle 

areas. The control group was more frequently given a specific 

discrimination against the protected testers with MD. These 

or range of time to view an available housing unit or to meet 

themes were (1) more encouraging to control tester or more 

the landlord ( p < .05) when compared with protected testers discouraging to protected tester; (2) more friendly, informal, 

with MD. E-mail responses to testers with MD showed a 

or personalized with control tester or more formal or less 

significantly higher use of discouraging words ( p < .05). A personalized with protected tester; (3) more urgency, priority, 

trend also emerged of using positive language more often with 

or prompting of further action for control tester to view the 

control group only and negative language more often with 

unit; (4) agent made him or herself more available to control 

the protected group only; however, the difference was not 

tester; (5) agent requested more effort or information from 

statistically significant in some cases. See Table A-3.

protected tester before moving forward; (6) agent (potentially 

inadvertently) discriminated against protected tester by asking 

As shown in Table A-4, an analysis of positive and negative 

about disability or discussing disability in a discouraging way; 

language used in e-mail responses showed that 34.1 percent 

and (7) agent did not agree to or acknowledge reasonable 

of landlords practiced favorable treatment to people without 

accommodation requests related to MD. Each of the seven 

disabilities by using at least one of the seven positive language 

themes that emerged from the data is outlined in the following 

categories. A total of 17.0 percent of landlords practiced 

sections, followed by examples from field notes that epitomize 

Table A-3. Response Difference in E-mail Content 

Response

Present in Neither

Present in Both

Control Group Only Protected Group Only McNemar  p-Value Positive language

Positive descriptive

45 (77.6%)

8 (13.8%)

2 (3.4%)

3 (5.2%)

1.000

View unit

14 (24.1%)

31 (53.4%)

8 (13.8%)

5 (8.6%)

0.581

Tour time offered

26 (44.8%)

18 (31.0%)

12 (20.7%)

2 (3.4%)

0.013*

Prompts

14 (24.1%)

37 (63.8%)

3 (5.2%)

4 (6.9%)

0.227

Greeting

12 (20.7%)

34 (58.6%)

7 (12.1%)

5 (8.6%)

0.774

Polite

8 (13.8%)

44 (75.9%)

4 (6.9%)

2 (3.4%)

0.687

Other units

56 (96.6%)

1 (1.7%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.7%)

1.000

Negative language

Disability

52 (89.7%)

1 (1.7%)

0 (0.0%)

5 (8.6%)

0.063

Discouraging 

49 (84.5%)

3 (5.2%)

0 (0.0%)

6 (10.3%)

0.031*

Background

57 (98.3%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.7%)

NA

Employment

54 (93.1%)

3 (5.2%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.7%)

1.000

Fees

47 (81.0%)

5 (8.6%)

2 (3.4%)

4 (6.9%)

0.687

Negative descriptive

58 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

NA

History

58 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

NA

NA = not applicable.

Notes: n = 58 pairs.  p-value < 0.05 indicates significantly different treatment between the two groups. Identical e-mail replies (n = 24) were not coded with this criterion. n = 9 did not have qualitative data available to code.

Table A-4. Subtle Discrimination Responses in Multiple Categories 

Number of Categories

Response

0

1

2

3

4

5

Positive language to control class only

54 (65.9%)

21 (25.6%)

6 (7.3%)

—

1 (1.2%)

—

Negative language to protected class only

68 (83.0%)

11 (13.4%)

2 (2.4%)

1 (1.2%)

—

—

Negative and positive language against protected class only

45 (54.9%)

26 (31.7%)

8 (9.8%)

2 (2.4%)

—

1 (1.2%)

Notes: n = 82 pairs. n = 9 did not have qualitative data available to code.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

54

it. In many cases, quotations were taken directly from landlord 

Theme 5: Agent requested more effort or information from 

responses. In some cases, the researcher’s analysis is summa-

protected tester before moving forward.

rized given the data supporting subtle discrimination, such as 

Researcher analysis: “PC asked the agent to suggest available 

in the form of tone throughout or timing of the e-mail.

hours, but the agent did not give PC these hours; instead, 

Theme 1: More encouraging to control tester or more 

she told PC to call (extra step/effort that PC now needs to 

discouraging to protected tester.

take).” (12133)

Researcher analysis: “Agent used more encouraging 

Researcher analysis: “Agent offered tour to C immediately, 

language with Control tester (C) (‘your future home,’ 

but for PC the invite was conditional (‘Please introduce 

‘your new home’). Agent included list of amenities and 

yourself a little bit more before make an appointment’). The 

photos of rental community with C [control tester] but 

landlord asked several questions about the tester’s request 

not PC [protected tester]. C received two emails, while 

for an assistance animal accommodation, income, and move 

PC got one. The additional email C received had more 

in date and how many people would be renting.” (11914)

information with the range of rates for 1BR and 2BR and 

Theme 6: Agent (potentially inadvertently) discriminated 

included an easy link to schedule a visit.” (12885)

against protected tester by asking about disability or 

Theme 2: More friendly, informal, or personalized with 

discussing disability in a discouraging way.

control tester or more formal or less personalized with 

Researcher analysis: “Very subtle discrimination. Agent 

protected tester.

seems to be trying to be helpful with the parking situation, 

Researcher analysis: “Both were invited for a visit. How-

but says ‘do you still want to see it?’ as if this may have 

ever, the agent introduced herself (‘my name is Wendy 

deterred PC. Never actually says to PC that unit is still 

the property manager’), asked for a contact number, 

available, but does to C.” (12491)

and showed more willingness (e.g., ‘I look forward to 

Researcher analysis: “Well-meaning agent, but asks questions 

working with you in the very near future in obtaining an 

about disability and mentions needing to qualify based on 

apartment!’) to assist C and not to Protected Tester (P).” 

the application to PC but not to C. The agent is polite to 

(12959)

PC (offers to give reminder calls for rent, says would love 

Theme 3: More urgency, priority, or prompting of further 

to have as part of community, etc.), but still mentions the 

action for control tester to view the unit.

need for a formal application for PC but not C.” (12946)

Researcher analysis: “P [protected tester] emailed agent 

Theme 7: Agent did not agree to or acknowledge reasonable 

first, but agent responded to C first and C was given an 

accommodation requests related to MD.

earlier time slot to visit.” (9668)

Researcher analysis: “PC asked about having an assistance 

Researcher analysis: “No invitation to contact the landlord 

dog as reasonable accommodation, but the agent respond-

for P, while C was given the landlord’s phone number.” 

ed with the building’s pet policy and that certain breeds 

(12877)

are not allowed in the building regardless of the disability 

accommodation request.” (13249)

Theme 4: Agent made him or herself more available to 

control tester.

Researcher analysis: “Agent did not acknowledge the tes-

ter’s reasonable accommodation request. PC email request: 

Researcher analysis: “Landlord made himself only 

‘…My dog is my assistance animal and I want to make sure 

available during the working day to PC, but offered more 

she can stay with me in this apartment.’ No response from 

availability to C.” (11565)

landlord to this request.” (12719)

To protected tester: “I can meet you at the building daily 

Using these themes, each e-mail pair was coded as containing 

10am-2pm. The unit is currently occupied till June 1.” 

subtle discrimination or not (see Table A-5). This analysis 

To control tester: “I’m by the building every day, 9am-

showed that about 42.7 percent of the protected testers experi-

3:00pm. What’s a good day/time for you?” (12140)

enced some type of subtle discrimination against them, whereas 

only 2.4 percent of the control group did.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

55

Table A-5. Subtle Discrimination in E-mail Testing 

had slightly more closed-door episodes, significantly different 

Subtle Discrimination Against  

Count 

treatment was not shown between the two groups in e-mail 

the Protected Class

(Percentage)

testing (Table A-7).

Yes

35 (42.7%)

No

41 (50.0%)

Unclear

6 (7.3%)

Table A-7. Open Door/Closed Door in E-mail Testing

Subtle discrimination against the control group

2 (2.4%)

Response

Control 

Protected 

McNemar’s 

Notes: n = 82 pairs. n = 9 did not have qualitative data available to code.

Group

Group

p-Value

Open door

53 (91.4%)

50 (86.2%)

0.223

Closed door

2 (3.4%)

4 (6.9%)

Quantitative Analysis of Reasonable 

Unclear

3 (5.2%)

4 (6.9%)

—

Accommodation Requests

Notes: n = 58 pairs. Identical e-mail replies (n = 24) were not coded with this criterion. n = 9 did not have qualitative data to code.

Of the 82 paired e-mail tests, 25 protected testers included a 

reasonable accommodation request in their initial inquiry (that 

is, asking for either a rent reminder or to have an assistance 

Telephone Testing Findings

animal in the apartment). Of those inquiries, 23 e-mail pairs 

could be coded, of which the housing provider did not re-

Qualitative Themes With Quantitative Analysis of 

spond to or acknowledge the request in 16 cases and approved 

Subtle Discrimination

the request in 3 instances. In the remaining 4 instances, the 

During telephone testing, six themes emerged related to subtle 

landlord did not agree to the request. In other words, they 

discrimination against the protected tester. These themes were 

responded negatively, such as “dogs are not allowed,” or 

(1) more urgency, priority, or prompting of further action 

inappropriately, such as asking about the size of the assistance 

for control tester to view the unit; (2) more encouraging to 

animal before deciding whether they would accept the request. 

control tester or more discouraging to protected tester; (3) more 

Both of these examples represent discriminatory practices. A 

friendly, informal, or personalized with control tester or more 

subanalysis was conducted to explore which disability group 

formal or less personalized with protected tester; (4) agent re-

or which type of reasonable accommodations were more or 

quested more effort or information from protected tester before 

less likely to receive negative responses. See Table A-6.

moving forward; (5) agent made him or herself more available 

to control tester; and (6) agent (potentially inadvertently) 

Quantitative Analysis of the Status of Further 

discriminated against protected tester by asking about disability 

Communication

or discussing disability in a discouraging way. The themes that 

emerged are summarized in the following section, followed by 

The status and overall tone of further communication with the 

examples and quotations that epitomize them.

landlord was also coded to examine whether they left an open 

door (positive to view unit) or a closed door (negative to view 

Unlike e-mail testing, telephone testing did not yield rental 

unit). Although findings show that that the protected group 

agent quotations. Instead, quotations represent field note 

excerpts or the tester’s own words describing the interaction 

with the agent.

Table A-6. Housing Provider Responses to RA Requests in E-mail Testing Responses

Group

Type of RA Request

Number of RA Requests

Total

Positive

Negative

None

I/DD

Rent reminder

3

0

1

2

3

Assistance animal

7

2

2

3

7

MI

Rent reminder

8

1

0

7

8

Assistance animal

5

0

1

4

5

Totals

23

3

4

16

23

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness. RA = reasonable accommodation.

Notes: n = 23 pairs. n = 2 did not have qualitative data to code.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

56

Theme 1: More urgency, priority, or prompting of further 

it. It’s not just about you.’ I said fair enough. … He asked 

action for control tester to view the unit.

if I was moving with someone else. I said no. He said that’s 

beautiful.”

•  Subtheme A: More prompting or urgency for control 

tester to view the unit, complete an application, or follow 

Researcher analysis: “Agent was friendlier/joking with con-

up.

trol tester and did not say anything like this to protected 

Quotation (to protected tester): “[The agent said] I do not 

class tester. Also, agent cut off protected class tester when 

give any information over the phone. Good bye.”

they were trying to justify their need for a reasonable 

accommodation.” (12115)

Quotation (to control tester): “The agent said would you 

like to come in today and see the apartment?”

Theme 4: Agent requested more effort or information from 

protected tester before moving forward.

Researcher analysis: “No information about apartment was 

given to PC, while C was given several details and invited 

Quotation (to protected tester): “[Agent said tester’s 

to view the unit.” (16484)

granddaughter with a developmental disability must call 

to set up an appointment] “if she is really interested in an 

•  Subtheme B: Agent shows priority to control tester by 

apartment.”

re quest ing more information from him or her during the call.

Researcher analysis: “Agent asked for C’s last name, phone 

Researcher analysis: “The agent would not accept the pro-

number and email address to contact them, but did not 

tected class tester calling for her granddaughter. Instead, 

ask PC for this.” (12420)

they required that the granddaughter call to set up the 

appointment herself, which requires extra effort and may 

Theme 2: More encouraging to control tester or more 

not be possible for PC to do by self.” (15058)

discouraging to protected tester.

Researcher analysis: “Agent asked for two pay stubs and/

•  Subtheme A: More units or lease options offered to 

or proof of income from the protected class tester but not 

control tester.

from the control tester.” (6696)

Researcher analysis: “C offered more apartment options 

Theme 5: Agent made him or herself more available to 

(with rents ranging between $980 and $1040) and differ-

control tester.

ent lengths of leases (3-13 months). PC offered one only 

($1010) and length of lease wasn’t discussed.” (12420)

Quotation (to control tester): “He said that he is available 

today until 6pm and tomorrow from 9am-5pm to show me 

•  Subtheme B: More positive information given about the 

the unit if I was interested. … He said I could give him a 

unit, community, or rental process to control tester or 

call on his line; he said the number is different than what I 

more negative information given to protected tester.

called. He gave me his personal line.”

Quotation (to protected tester): “Deborah [landlord] also 

explained that Susan [renter] would need to make 3x the 

Researcher analysis: “The control tester was told about the 

rent and have a credit score of 650 or better.”

agent’s availability and office hours, whereas the protected 

class tester was not. Also, the control tester was given the 

Researcher analysis: “Agent mentioned income/credit 

agent’s personal/direct line, whereas the protected class 

requirement to PC tester only.” (12437)

tester was not.” (11955)

Researcher analysis: “Agent told C about six amenities and 

Theme 6: Agent (potentially inadvertently) discriminated 

did not tell PC about any. Also, PC was told the applica-

against protected tester by asking about disability or 

tion process would take 7-10 days, while C was told it 

discussing disability in a discouraging way.

would only take 3-5 business days.” (16235)

•  Subtheme A: Agent questions protected tester’s competence.

Theme 3: More friendly, informal, or personalized with 

control tester or more formal or less personalized with 

Quotation (to protected tester): “[The agent] was concerned 

protected tester.

that Susan (PC tester) would not be able to care for herself 

and may leave on the gas. I assured her that the counselors 

Quotation (to control tester): “I asked if I would just 

would not allow her to go on her own if they felt she would 

come in and see the place and if I like it, I can rent it. He 

endanger herself.” (12250)

laughed and said, ‘if we like each other, then you can rent 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

57

Quotation (to protected tester): “Is Denise (PC tester) able 

Qualitative Themes With Quantitative Analysis: 

to care for the dog independently and clean up behind the 

Overt Discrimination

animal?” (10980)

Three themes emerged related to overt discrimination that 

Quotation (to protected tester): [The protected tester 

would be covered explicitly under the FHA. These themes were 

asked for a rent reminder as a reasonable accommodation. 

(1) only the protected tester received a negative response about 

The agent] “said he was willing to do that but he would 

availability of the unit, (2) fees or rent rates quoted were higher 

hold me [family member calling] responsible. I explained 

for only the protected testers, (3) the agent made overt com-

that this would be her responsibility; she would just need 

ments related to disability, and (4) the agent denied reasonable 

the reminder when it was close to the time. He said that I 

accommodation requests.

told him that Denise had a ‘problem’ and she was autistic. 

Theme 1: Only the protected tester received a negative 

He said that if he gave her the apt he would be willing to 

response about the availability of the unit.

do what I asked. However, because she had a ‘problem’ 

ultimately I would have to be responsible because he 

Researcher’s analysis: “Initially said unit available then 

couldn’t babysit her up there in that apt.” (12115)

changed the answer after disability disclosure, saying “‘call 

back next week.’” (15339)

•  Subtheme B: Agent makes other assumptions about 

protected tester due to their disability.

Researcher’s analysis: “To PC, agent said that ‘the apartment 

would be rented by the end of the week’ because they have 

Quotation (to protected tester): [Immediately after disability 

enough applicants whereas to C, the one bedroom was avail-

disclosure], “the agent asked if she [the tester’s sister with 

able and information was given on how to view.” (12698)

a developmental disability was on Section 8 or SSI.” (16593)

Theme 2: Fees or rent rates quoted were higher for only the 

Quotation (to protected tester): “[The agent said], ‘you 

protected testers.

mentioned your brother needs to stay calm.’ She said ‘he 

isn’t violent?’ I said ‘no he isn’t.’ She said ‘we are going to 

Researcher’s analysis: “PC tester was told rent for apartment 

do a credit/criminal background.’ [Agent] said ‘he doesn’t 

was $1,325. Control tester was told and got from ad that 

have anything on his record?’ I said, ‘no not a thing.’”

rent was $1,005 for the same apartment.” (12165)

Researcher analysis: “The agent appears to be linking 

Researcher’s analysis: “Agent required 1 month security 

mental illness to violence and a criminal record, therefore 

deposit from PC tester, none for C.” (6728)

insisting on the need for a background check. This appears 

Researcher’s analysis: “Security deposit for Protected Class 

to be evidence of stigma and stereotyping.” (11927)

tester is $99 to one month’s rent ($1005), for Control 

Basing their analysis on these themes, coders summarized 

tester is $99 to $300.” (7528)

whether subtle discrimination was present (Table A-8). 

Theme 3: The agent made overt comments related to disability.

The results revealed that 63 percent of the protected testers 

experienced subtle discrimination, with a higher percentage 

Quotation: [To a question about the process for applica-

(65.7 percent) among testers with I/DD.

tion], “I have no process, I’m pretty busy I have no more 

time to talk” and “if she needs rent reminder she needs to 

Table A-8. Subtle Discrimination in Telephone Testing

stay in the group home and I have no more time to talk to 

Disability

Yes

No

Unclear

Total n

you. Good bye.” (14442)

I/DD

197 (65.7%)

83 (27.7%)

13 (4.3%)

293

MI

214 (60.8%)

126 (35.8%)

9 (2.6%)

349

Quotation: “We need to keep the crazies out” regarding 

Totals

411 (63.0%)

209 (32.1%)

22 (3.4%)

642

criminal and credit background check. (14532)

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

Notes: n = 642 pairs. 10 pairs were not coded because disability was Quotation: “Do you think that she should consider renting 

not disclosed during testing. 16 pairs did not have qualitative data to an apartment if someone needs to remind her to pay the 

code.

rent?” (15342)

Quotation: “She said no, we are not the type of property 

that deals with people with, mental cases. I don’t really 

know how to say it, but yeah, mental cases.” (11619)

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

58

Theme 4: The agent denied reasonable accommodation 

Overt discrimination was determined based on these themes, 

requests.

with results showing that approximately 57 percent of the 

protected testers experienced overt discrimination (see Table 

•  Subtheme A: Agent denies the request directly and 

A-9). No significant difference was found by type of MD (MI or 

unequivocally.

I/DD).

Quotation: “Absolutely No! That’s up to the family to 

Table A-10 summarizes differences in responses between type 

handle if you want her to rent an apartment here.” (8768)

of requests and between different disability testers.

Quotation: “She told me they don’t allow pets under any 

circumstances.” (13433)

Table A-9. Overt Discrimination in Telephone Testing

Disability

Yes

No

Unclear

Total n

•  Subtheme B: Agents not knowing the legal rights of 

I/DD

168 (57.3%)

122 (41.6%)

3 (1.0%)

293

people with disabilities and needing to ask their managers 

MI

202 (57.9%)

141 (40.1%)

6 (1.4%)

349

or consult with others (for example, homeowners’ 

Totals

370 (57.6%)

263 (41.0%)

9 (1.4%)

642

association) to provide the testers with the answer.

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

Notes: n = 642 pairs. 10 pairs were not coded because disability was Quotation: Agent said, “she is not sure about the rent re-not disclosed during testing. 16 pairs did not have qualitative data available to code.

minder but she would inquire with the main office about 

it and would get back to me.” (12462)

Table A-10. Housing Provider Responses to RA 

Researcher analysis: “Landlord was unsure about assis-

 Requests in Telephone Testing 

tance animal and stated that he ‘needs to ask the home 

Responses

Group Type of RA 

Number of  

owner’s association.’” (14472)

Request

RA Requests

Positive

Negative

I/DD

Rent reminder

147

79 (53.7%)

68 (46.3%)

•  Subtheme C: Verbal rent reminder request not accepted, 

Service animal

131

70 (53.4%)

61 (46.6%)

but alternative methods (for example, e-mail reminder, 

MI

Rent reminder

182

76 (41.8%)

106 (58.2%)

written reminder, auto payment plan) offered.

Service animal

155

90 (58.1%)

65 (41.9%)

Quotation: “When asked about the rent reminder I was 

Totals

615

315 (51.2%) 300 (48.8%)

informed that they only provide a five day written notice 

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness. RA = 

reasonable accommodation.

for those who are in jeopardy of being late.” (12108)

Notes: n = 615 pairs. 37 protected testers were not included in the 

analysis because they did not request RA during their testing.

•  Subtheme D: Assistance animal request was often denied 

based on general no pet policy or weight or size policy, or 

accepted but with additional pet fee charges.

Quantitative Analysis of Status of Further 

Communication

Quotation: Agent said “she is sorry but no pets are al-

lowed. I said my brother has his doctor’s documentation. 

Coding of the status of further communication with the land-

She said she is sorry but they have a no pet policy.” 

lord revealed that the protected testers experienced significantly 

(12968)

more closed-door or negative communications, whereas control 

testers experienced more open-door, positive communications. 

Quotation: “I asked if the fees could be waived and she 

Table A-11 summarizes the disposition of closed-door versus 

[agent] explained that they could not be waived because 

open-door responses among the control group testers and 

they would have to do it for everyone.” (13345)

protected class testers.

Researcher analysis: Agent said that “pet over 25lbs is usu-

Table A-11. Open Door/Closed Door in Telephone 

ally not allowed but it would be ok with documentation. 

Testing

However, pet fee cannot be waived.” (21474)

Response

Control 

Protected 

McNemar’s 

Group

Group

p-Value

•  Subtheme E: Agent not acknowledging the need of an 

Open door

571 (88%)

311 (47.7%)

assistance animal for a person with MD.

0.000

Closed door

46 (6.4%)

205 (31.4%)

Unclear

35 (5.4%)

136 (20.9%)

—

Quotation: “Support animal is not permissible unless the 

Note: n = 652 pairs.

resident was blind.” (10985)

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

59

In-Person Testing Findings

Theme 2: More encouraging to control tester or more dis-

couraging to protected tester.

Qualitative Themes With Quantitative Analysis: 

Subtle Discrimination

•  Subtheme A: More units or amenities shown, more options 

offered, or both to control tester.

During in-person testing, six themes emerged related to subtle 

discrimination against the protected tester. These themes were 

Researcher analysis: “The control tester’s tour included two 

(1) more urgency, priority, or prompting of further action for 

apartments, the business center, mailroom, and gym area 

control tester to submit an application, follow up, or continue 

while the protected class tester’s tour only included one 

the rental process; (2) more encouraging to control tester or 

apartment. Second, the protected class tester was offered 

more discouraging to protected tester; (3) more friendly, infor-

one apartment while the control tester was offered three 

mal, or personalized with control tester or more formal or less 

apartments.” (14082)

personalized with protected tester; (4) agent requested more 

•  Subtheme B: More positive information given about the 

effort or information from protected tester before moving for-

unit, community, or rental process to control tester or more 

ward; (5) agent made him or herself more available to control 

negative information given to protected tester.

tester; and (6) agent (potentially inadvertently) discriminated 

against protected tester by asking about disability or discussing 

Researcher analysis: “The control tester was given notes on 

disability in a discouraging way.

floor plans and the protected class tester received verbal 

information only. Also, the control tester was told about more 

The themes and accompanying subthemes that emerged from 

amenities (parking, business center, dry cleaning service, 

the data are outlined in the following list and are followed by 

package receiving service, storage facilities, security deposit, 

quotations that epitomize them. Similar to telephone testing 

close to everything including grocery store), while the 

data, in-person testing data were taken from tester field notes 

protected class tester was told about fewer amenities (close 

that testers wrote on completion of the test. The quotations 

to metro, gym) and was also given extra discouraging infor-

that follow each theme are field note excerpts, or the tester’s 

mation (that utilities are not included in the rent).” (14082)

own words describing the interaction with the agent. Research-

er analyses are interpretations or summaries of the tester field 

Researcher analysis: “The protected class tester was told 

note excerpts.

about more income/fee requirements. Additionally, they 

were told that the application process would take 4-7 days, 

Theme 1: More urgency, priority, or prompting of further 

while the control tester was told it would take only 3-4 days. 

action for control tester to submit an application, follow 

Finally, the agent told the protected class tester that there 

up, or continue the rental process.

was crime in the building/on the property and did not say 

•  Subtheme A: More prompting or urgency for control 

this to the control tester.” (13939)

tester to continue the rental process.

Theme 3: More friendly, informal, or personalized with 

Researcher analysis: “The agent told the control tester to 

control tester or more formal or less personalized with 

please give him a call when they make the decision, that 

protected tester.

they won’t find a better unit, and that the unit may go fast. 

Quotation (to control tester): “[The agent] introduced me to 

The agent did not say these things to the protected class 

[another staff member] and said that her name was ‘Shirley.’ 

tester.” (16213)

… We returned to the Leasing Office and Shirley asked me 

•  Subtheme B: Agent shows priority to control tester by 

if I had seen anything that I liked. I said that I had. Lindsay 

requesting more contact information from them.

mentioned to her that I was looking for my first apartment.”

Researcher analysis: “The control tester was asked to provide Researcher analysis: “The agent introduced the control tester 

their ID, phone number, and email before the tour while 

to another staff member and initiated conversation between 

the protected class tester was only asked to provide their 

them, which is evidence of being friendly and personalized 

ID. This is evidence of being more interested in following 

with this tester. The agent did not introduce the protected 

up with or giving priority to the control tester.” (14056)

class tester to any other staff members. Also, the agent 

offered the control tester several decorating tips on what to 

do with the space and pointed out the track lighting, which 

she did not do with the protected class tester, thus showing 

friendliness and personalization once again.” (14082)

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

60

Theme 4: Agent requested more effort or information from 

subtle discrimination during their visit to the apartment, with 

protected tester before moving forward.

a higher percentage of subtle discrimination (62.9 percent) 

experienced by testers with MI.

Researcher analysis: “The agent told the protected class 

tester that no flyers were available and asked the tester to 

Qualitative Themes With Quantitative Analysis: 

check the website for them. Conversely, when meeting 

Overt Discrimination

with the control tester, ‘went over to a file and retrieved 

a flyer which listed information about the apartments, 

In in-person testing, similar themes to those in telephone testing 

including their features, rental rates, fees, and what was 

emerged related to overt discrimination; however, reasonable 

needed to apply.’” (14619)

accommodation requests were not done during the in-person 

testing.

Theme 5: Agent made himself or herself more available to 

control tester.

Theme 1: Only the protected tester received a negative 

response about the availability of the unit.

Researcher analysis: “The agent opened the unit door 

and left the protected class testers to look around the 

Researcher analysis: “Units were not available for PC to 

(smelly, uncleaned) unit by themselves. The control tester 

view. The agent went to make copies of PC’s ID before 

was accompanied by the agent when viewing the unit. 

showing the units, talked to another staff for 3-4 mins, and 

Additionally, the agent provided the control tester with 

came back out saying that contractors are working in both 

her name, phone number, and office hours, but only 

units thus units so not available for viewing. No further 

provided the protected class testers with her name and 

invite was offered to come back to see the units after the 

phone number but no office hours.” (14619)

work is done. C was able to view units.” (14284)

Theme 6: Agent (potentially inadvertently) discriminated 

Theme 2: Fees or rent rates quoted were higher for only the 

against protected tester by asking about disability or 

protected testers.

discussing disability in a discouraging way.

Researcher analysis: “To C agent said that there is no security 

•  Subtheme A: Agent questions protected tester’s competence.

deposit and now they do non-refundable move-in fee 

of $200. PC was told that there is a one month security 

Researcher analysis: “The agent addressed the protected 

deposit ($1005).” (14283)

class companion tester when asking/answering questions, 

rather than speaking with the tester with a disability, who 

Theme 3: The agent made overt comments related to disability.

was the one actually seeking to rent the unit.” (15082)

Researcher analysis: “Agent inquired about nature and 

•  Subtheme B: Agent makes other assumptions about 

severity of disability. Agent asked what kind of disability 

protected tester due to their disability.

PC has.” (16521)

Researcher analysis: “The agent mentioned Section 8 housing 

Table A-13 shows the analysis of occasions of overt discrimi-

to the protected testers, who replied by saying they were 

nation. Far less overt discrimination occurred in the in-person 

actually looking for market rental housing, not Section 8 

testing than in the telephone testing. Out of 83 testers, 11 pro-

housing. Even after the testers made this clarification, the 

tected testers (13.3 percent) experienced overt discrimination. 

agent still mentioned Section 8 housing a second time.” 

The discrimination rate was higher with testers with MI.

(13783)

Table A-13. Overt Discrimination in In-Person Testing

Based on these themes, subtle discrimination was coded (Table 

Disability

Yes

No

Unclear

Total

A-12). In all, 45 protected testers (54.2 percent) experienced 

I/DD

4 (2.1%)

43 (89.6%)

1 (2.1%)

48 (100%)

MI

7 (20.0%)

28 (80.0%)

0 (0.0%)

35 (100%)

Table A-12. Subtle Discrimination in In-Person Testing

Totals

11 (13.3%)

71 (85.5%)

1 (1.2%)

83 (100%)

Notes: n = 83 pairs. 18 pairs did not have qualitative data to code.

Disability

Yes

No

Unclear

Total

I/DD

23 (47.9%)

24 (50.1%)

1 (2.0%)

48

MI

22 (62.9%)

13 (37.1%)

0 (0.0%)

35

Totals

45 (54.2%)

37 (44.6%)

1 (1.2%)

83

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

Notes: n = 83 pairs. 18 pairs did not have qualitative data to code.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

61

Quantitative Analysis of Status of Further 

before providing the protected tester with an answer. In a 

Communication

few cases, however, the agents asked the manager while on 

Coding of the status of further communication with the 

the call and then approved the reasonable accommodation 

landlord shows that the protected group had slightly more 

request. This finding shows that, although many agents 

occasions when further communication was closed, but the 

are still not trained in fair housing requirements, some are 

differences were not significant (Table A-14).

making the effort to ensure they are giving the prospective 

tenant the correct answer. Also, the managers in these 

Table A-14. Open Door/Closed Door in In-Person 

cases are knowledgeable about the FHA and reasonable 

Testing

accommodations, which demonstrates the positive effect 

Count (Percent)

the law has had in recent years.

Response

Control 

Protected 

McNemar’s 

•  For protected testers who asked for an assistance animal 

Group

Group

p-Value

Open door

81 (97.6%)

78 (94.0%)

reasonable accommodation, some agents would ask 

0.250

Closed door

2 (2.4%)

5 (6.0%)

questions related to the building’s pet policy. For example, 

Notes: n = 83 pairs. 18 pairs did not have qualitative data to code.

some agents asked the breed or size of the animal, and, 

although the agents ended up approving the reasonable 

Discussion and Conclusions

accommodation request because the tester’s animal fit 

the pet policy parameters, this request would likely have 

This mixed-methods approach to qualitatively analyzing data, 

been denied if the tester had a different assistance animal 

followed by summarizing findings quantitatively to examine 

that did not fit general requirements. This practice shows 

differences between people with and without MD in market 

potential discriminatory behavior, but it did not play out 

rental searches, produces new and significant findings that 

in these particular cases due to the tester’s scenario rather 

further document specific examples and frequencies of both 

than the agent’s decision or behavior.

subtle and overt housing discrimination against people with MI 

and I/DD. These findings, including implications for education 

Both Telephone and In-Person Testing

and training of housing providers on the FHA and specifically 

on reasonable accommodations based on MD within rental 

•  Protected testers were often told that an application fee 

housing, are summarized in this section.

would be charged for each adult applicant, whereas control 

testers were told about this extra fee less often. Even when 

protected testers clarified that only the person with a 

Telephone Testing

disability would be applying for and renting the unit, some 

•  Some agents specifically cited the FHA but misinterpreted 

agents still felt the need to reiterate this additional fee.

it. They said that they follow the FHA and, therefore, they 

cannot give anyone special treatment—they need to treat 

Differences Detected

everyone the same. This finding seems to show progress in 

that they are aware of the FHA and are trying to follow it, 

•  Overt discrimination practice was found to be much more 

but more education about disability reasonable accommo-

likely in telephone testing (57 percent) than in in-person 

dations is needed.

testing (13 percent). One potential explanation of the 

lower overt discrimination rate in in-person testing is 

•  A trend that emerged was that, with some protected testers 

that, in in- person testing, the testers had already made an 

with I/DD, the agent appeared excited about renting the 

appointment in advance and knew the unit was ready to 

unit to the tester and would cite positive safety amenities 

be viewed. In telephone testing, however, many protected 

of the unit and building (for example, gated community) 

testers were told that units were not available compared 

but would later ask for extra eligibility requirements, 

with control testers who were given information about 

fees, or verification. This practice seems to show intent to 

available units. Open door/closed door analysis supports 

initially appear fair, encouraging, and open to the tester 

that a significant difference in unit availability exists 

but to later subtly discriminate by making it more difficult 

between control and protected testers.

for protected testers to rent.

•  Subtle discrimination occurred to more than one-half of 

•  Some agents did not know about their ability to approve 

the protected testers in both telephone (63 percent) and 

a reasonable accommodation and had to ask a manager 

in-person testing (54 percent). During in-person testing, 

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

62

agents could not overtly discriminate because the testers 

and overt discrimination, whereas during telephone testing 

were already there to view the unit, but the agents still 

discrimination rates against testers with MI and I/DD 

practiced subtle discrimination with the intention of 

were similar. Given the fact that the in-person tests were 

discouraging the protected tester from taking the next step 

conducted by persons with MI and I/DD, as opposed to 

or as a result of asking about MD.

the telephone tests, which were conducted by proxies, this 

observation adds weight to the notion that persons with 

•  During in-person testing, testers with MI showed higher 

MI experience higher rates of housing discrimination when 

discrimination rates than testers with I/DD in both subtle 

compared with persons with I/DD.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

63

Appendix B: References

Ahmed, Ali M., and Mats Hammarstedt. 2008. “Discrimination 

Kaye, Kimberly E. 2012. “Public Stigma Toward Housing 

in the Rental Housing Market: A Field Experiment on the 

Applicants With Psychiatric Disabilities.” Master’s thesis, 

Internet,”  Journal of Urban Economics  64 (2): 362–372.

Department of Psychology, San Diego State University.

American Psychiatric Association (APA). 2000.  Diagnostic and 

MacDonald-Wilson, Kim L., Zlatka Russinova, E. Sally Rogers, 

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Arlington, VA: Chia Huei Lin, Terri Ferguson, Shengli Dong, S., and Megan 

American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

Kash MacDonald. 2011. “Disclosure of Mental Health Disabilities 

in the Workplace.” In  Work Accommodation and Retention in 

Braddock, David, Richard Hemp, Mary C. Rizzolo, 

Mental Health, edited by Izabela Z. Schultz and E. Sally Rogers. 

Laura Haffer, Emily Shea Tanis, and Jiang Wu. 2011. 

New York: Springer: 191–217.

The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities 2011. 

Boulder, CO: Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities 

McNemar, Q. 1947. “Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference 

University of Colorado. https://www.researchgate.net/

Between Correlated Proportions or Percentages,”  Psychometrika 

profile/ Richard_Hemp/ publication/8377686_The_State_

12 (2): 153–157.

of_the_States_in_ Developmental_Disabilities_2011/

National Council on Disability (NCD). 2001.  Reconstructing Fair 

links/55df7d4808ae6abe6e86538a.pdf.

Housing. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.

Brault, Matthew W. 2012. “Americans with Disabilities: 2010.” 

National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA). 2015.  Where You Live 

Current Populations Report #P70-131. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Matters: 2015 Fair Housing Trends Report.  Washington, DC: 

Census Bureau.

National Fair Housing Alliance. http://www.nationalfairhousing.

Corrigan, P.W., and D.L. Penn. 1999. “Lessons From Social 

org/FairHousingResourceCenter/ReportsandResearch/

Psychology on Discrediting Psychiatric Stigma,”  American 

tabid/3917/Default.aspx.

Psychologist 54 (9): 765–776.

Ng, Terence, Alice Wong, and Charlene Harrington. 2013. 

Dalgin, Rebecca Spirito, and James Bellini. 2008. “Invisible 

“Home and Community-Based Services: Introduction to Olm-

Disability Disclosure in an Employment Interview: Impact 

stead Lawsuits and Olmstead Plans.” San Francisco: University 

on Employers’ Hiring Decisions and Views of Employability.” 

of California, San Francisco, National Center for Personal Assis-

Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 52 (1): 6–15.

tance Services. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/

events/homelessness_poverty/2013_Annual_Meeting_Medicaid/

Denny-Brown, Noelle, Debra Lipson, Matthew Kehn, Bailey 

intro_to_olmstead_lawsuits_and_plans.authcheckdam.pdf.

Orshan, and Christal Stone Valenzano. 2011. “Money Follows 

the Person Demonstration: Overview of State Grantee Progress, 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

January to June 2011.”  Prepared for the Centers for Medicare 2002.  Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National 

& Medicaid Services, Division of Community Services 

Results From Phase I HDS 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

Transformation, Disabled and Elderly Health Programs Group. 

ment of Housing and Urban Development.

Cambridge, MA: Mathematica Policy Research.

———. 2005.  Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities: 

Hanson, Andrew, Zackary Hawley, and Aryn Taylor. 2011. 

Barriers at Every Step. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

“Subtle Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market: Evidence 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development 

From E-mail Correspondence With Landlords,”  Journal of 

and Research. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/

Housing Economics 20 (4): 276–284.

discrimination-against-persons-disabilities/view/full_report.

Housing Discrimination Law Project of Vermont Legal Aid, 

———. n.d.  Live Free: Annual Report on Fair Housing, 

Inc. (HDLP). 2012.  Rental Discrimination Audit Report: Housing 

FY 2010.  http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/

Discrimination in Vermont Rental Markets. Burlington, VT: 

huddoc?id=ANNUALREPORT2010.PDF.

Vermont Legal Aid.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

64

———. 2013a.  An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against 

———. 2014b. “Fair Housing Enforcement Organizations Use 

Same-Sex Couples. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Hous-

Testing To Expose Discrimination.”  Evidence Matters, Spring/

ing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development 

Summer 2014. http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/em/

and Research. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/

spring14/highlight3.html.

fairhsg/discrim_samesex.html.

———. 2015.  Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market Against 

———. 2013b. “Service Animals and Assistance Animals 

People Who Are Deaf and People Who Use Wheelchairs: National 

for People With Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded 

Study Findings.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing 

Programs.” Press release. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

of Housing and Urban Development.  http://portal.hud.

Research. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/

gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_

pdf/housing_discrimination_disability.pdf.

advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-060A.

Wagner, Karen L. 2008. “Tools of the Online Trade,”  Journal of 

———. 2014a.  Annual Report on Fair Housing: FY 2012–2013. 

Property Management. 73 (4): 32–37.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

Document Outline

Executive Summary

Introduction

Summary of Findings

Recommendations

Study Overview

Purpose and Goals of the Study

Background and Previous Research on Housing Discrimination Against People With MD

Overview of Testing Focused on Individuals With MD

Paired Testing Protocols and Field Management

Overview of Testing for Housing Discrimination

Strengths and Limitations of Paired Testing in Different Testing Methods

Overview of the Paired Testing Design and Process

Pretesting

E-mail Testing Protocols

Telephone Testing Protocols

In-Person Testing Protocols

Overall Data Collection Oversight, Management, and Quality Control

Sampling Methods

Sampling Frame

Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

Sample of Metropolitan Areas

Selection of Advertised Units

Risk of Detection

Sampling of Units

Analysis of Testing Findings

Summary of Tests Conducted

Measuring Differential Treatment

Data Analysis

Measuring Discrimination

Findings of Incidence of Discrimination

Data Reliability and Limitations

E-mail Testing Findings

Reasonable Accommodation Requests via E-mail

Telephone Testing Findings

Reasonable Accommodation Requests via Telephone

In-Person Testing Findings

Findings From the Evaluation of Different Testing Modes

People With Disabilities As Testers: Is It Feasible?

Tester Profile: How Do You Isolate and Reveal Disability?

E-mail Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses

Telephone Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses

In-Person Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses As Evaluated by Testers With MD and Companion Testers

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Project Leadership and Design

Recruitment and Selection of Testers

Training and Data Collection

Appendix A: Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities by Different Testing Modes

Qualitative Analysis Methodology

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion and Conclusions

Appendix B: References

Table 1. Testing Timeline 

Table 2. Subject Lines Assigned Randomly for All E-mail Tests 

Table 3. E-mail Tester Scripts 

Table 4. Reasonable Accommodation Request by Type of Disability  

Table 5. Telephone Tester Scripts 

Table 6. Examples of How MD May Affect Functional Aspects of Life and Maintenance of Housing 

Table 7. Sampling Frame for People With MD, by Test Type 

Table 8. Rental Market Sampling Frame 

Table 9. Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

Table 10. Distribution of Population With Disabilities and Proportion With Cognitive Disabilities, 2009–2011 

Table 11. Pool of Possible Markets (MSAs) Based on Statistical Criteria for Inclusion 

Table 12. Selected Markets by Size and Olmstead Status

Table 13. Sample Allocation Plan Across Communities and Test Types by Market Size 

Table 14. Criteria for Inclusion in/Exclusion From Unit Sample 

Table 15. Total Tests Conducted by Test Mode 

Table 16. E-mail Sample Allocation by Market Size 

Table 17. Telephone Testing Allocation by Market Size 

Table 18. In-Person Sample Allocation by Location 

Table 19. Differential Treatment Indicator Matrix (1 of 2) 

Table 20. Possible Outcomes Matrix 

Table 21. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing 

Table 22. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing 

Table 23. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing 

Table 24. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing 

Table 25. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Requests by Testers With MD Found in E-mail Testing 

Table 26. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD Found in Telephone Testing

Table 27. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in Telephone Testing

Table 28. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in Telephone Testing

Table 29. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Requests by Testers With MD Found in Telephone Testing 

Table 30. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Request Responses by Specific Markets 

Table 31. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters with MD Found in In-Person Testing

Table 32. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in In-Person Testing

Table 33. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in In-Person Testing

Table 34. Pros and Cons of E-mail Testing 

Table 35. Pros and Cons of Telephone Testing 

Table 36. Pros and Cons of In-Person Testing

Table A-1. Samples of Telephone and In-Person Testing 

Table A-2. Subtle Discrimination Indicator Keyword Groups

Table A-3. Response Difference in E-mail Content 

Table A-4. Subtle Discrimination Responses in Multiple Categories 

Table A-5. Subtle Discrimination in E-mail Testing 

Table A-6. Housing Provider Responses to Reasonable Accommodation Requests in E-mail Testing 

Table A-7. Open Door/Closed Door in E-mail Testing

Table A-8. Subtle Discrimination in Telephone Testing

Table A-9. Overt Discrimination in Telephone Testing

Table A-10. Landlord Responses to RA Requests in Telephone Testing 

Table A-11. Open Door/Closed Door in Telephone Testing

Table A-12. Subtle Discrimination in In-Person Testing

Table A-13. Overt Discrimination in In-Person Testing

Table A-14. Open Door/Closed Door in In-Person Testing